easycure

Here she is! I expected it.. ;-) I agree on everything.

So, as it is obvious, "harmony" or "emotion" in themselves do not create beauty. Emotion is a matter of culture. If someone hasn't listened to anything in their life, then probably even Ramazzotti will evoke emotions; he is designed to do so. But it doesn't mean anything to me. Just like Another Day doesn't mean anything, because in its way of evoking emotion it is stale and useless; it refers to a tradition without reworking it except at a formal level. It doesn't say anything to me beyond a ballad by Queen or one by Led Zeppelin. Or by the Scorpions, or by Guns'n Roses. Why? Because it simply relies on the stylistic features of each of these bands (and others) and doesn't rework anything, other than changing a few aspects at the level of pure instrumental interpretation. How can a piece evoke emotion when it repeats the same emotional effect as dozens of other pieces before it? Emotion needs originality, the uniqueness of the poetry that every human being, as such, is capable of expressing. Perhaps it’s just a matter of culture, and maybe Lux or Matt, before spouting nonsense about the Velvet Underground or Sonic Youth, would need to listen to a few more records.

Thanks to Domo984. I’m not really interested in the "historicity" of a band... perhaps my examples were misleading in that sense (not all of them, anyway), but they were meant to demonstrate the substantially relative futility of technique in rock. But historicity is still a consequence: if a band is historic, it means that it has been important, original, innovative; being historic is not the cause or essence of a band. What matters, as Domo said, is expressiveness, which cannot disregard originality... just as every human being is unique, so what they express is unique... if a form of art is not unique, that is, original, it is poor, because it relies on already known stylistic elements, it does not enrich, it does not evolve, it remains stagnant. And how can we accept that art remains stagnant? Furthermore, Lux says that for him, a piece must evoke emotions. But how can it evoke emotions if it repeats the same way of eliciting feelings? I don’t get moved by a stale piece... I don’t get moved by Sanremo songs, which, mind you, move a lot of people; that is, their emotional effect, just like Another Day, is actually there... but here, everyone finds Sanremo songs worthless. Why? Because they taste of nothing, they are futile, banal.

But if we are talking about harmony and melody but not about expressiveness, are we simply talking about playing melodically? This would exclude a huge range of art from the outset... or are we talking about refinement? In that case, punk would be entirely excluded, despite bands like Fugazi, among the greatest bands ever, with a unique style capable of conveying the neuroses of a world and a generation with a unique effectiveness (expressiveness)... or is it simply about being able to construct great harmony? But then we are speaking purely in terms of effect. How can art exist independently from what it conveys? How can art exist without content? And so, how can it exist without expressiveness? Moreover, even from this perspective, it is a contradiction that the Ramones do not make quality music... within a short piece, with a poor production that perhaps tarnished its clarity, they nonetheless managed to harmonize with great skill: their choruses are memorable, their songs are exhilarating. So perhaps they are not technical? Therefore, is it a matter of technique? But you contradicted me. So, are they not refined and elaborate? But then, is it purely a matter of form, which is intrinsically limited and unacceptable, as mentioned above?

If expressiveness has nothing to do with quality, then what does have to do with quality? I don’t understand, it seems to me that you have a concept of quality (although both you and Matt constantly avoid defining it for me) that could be better applied to a food product than to a form of art... we are not talking about snacks.

Yes, but Mario, you still haven't defined this blessed "quality" for me... so what does quality music mean to you? For me, stereotypes, conservatism, pure form, and bland emotional effects (which are not about being emotional, but rather imposing an emotional canon) – to me, this is not quality; it is ugliness. Furthermore, I haven't only cited precursors: the Pixies are not precursors, nor are Sonic Youth or the Velvet Underground, who are ALSO precursors, but are ALSO among the greatest representatives of their respective times, genres, and movements.

What is obvious without beating around the bush is that technique is neither fundamental nor necessary in rock... this is historically a fact. Then Matt7 can keep shouting as much as he wants, but unequivocally it significantly undermines the credibility of what many of their fans would claim about DT. Furthermore, it’s not that I want to identify myself as the denigrator of technique: Slint or Tortoise, bands I appreciate and adore (in the case of Slint), are technically skilled groups but use that to innovate (and I absolutely agree with Jettojet and Marco85 on this), to express themselves in a unique way and convey the uniqueness of their feelings. This is greatness, not stereotyping 30 years of rock culture to make it fodder for one's own exhibitionism. This is pure presumptuous mediocrity.

Yes, but it's not at all certain that such control comes from technique... even if we run the risk of getting bogged down in endless purely definitional discussions. Dear Matt7, I may be presumptuous, but at least I take responsibility for what I say. I'm still waiting for your analysis of the qualitative flaws of Sonic Youth... if you've mentioned them to support your opinions, there must be a reason; so I repeat: why wouldn't they be "artists of the genre"? Please take responsibility for your statements.

eh. yes. :-)

Well, aside from the fact that it is essential... if it is a mere tool, it can be important, but it certainly isn't a necessary condition, that's the point.