easycure

I will listen to the Opeth if you want (but I don’t understand how this relates to this review. Do you see that with every comment you always try to sidetrack the discussion?) ...in general, however, I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU that Heavy Metal has characteristics that I definitely find debatable... this is a generalization. A lot of metal albums are masterpieces, but Metal in general often has an absolutely antiseptic and uncreative approach. With this, I didn't want to highlight any of your flaws... I just found your comments about the Floyd a tad ambiguous, but we’ve already clarified (by the way, to be precise, Pink Floyd are not, or are only relatively, a prog rock band)... P.S. it doesn’t matter that you repeat the rating with every comment, we get your point ;-)

But what does it have to do with it? Did I talk about prog metal in general in the review? I mentioned Dream Theater because I have listened to them... Moreover, it’s precisely because you consider it the ultimate genre in ROCK that I discuss it, since I have listened to a lot of Rock, and among the many Rock bands I have listened to, the Prog metal I've heard seems bad to me. Furthermore, I didn't understand the meaning of your statement: I hope you don't want to consider Pink Floyd as prog metal... please tell me no. Aside from that, for me Pink Floyd is one of the greatest bands of all time, but Pink Floyd have NEVER been exclusively identified with progressive (even albums like Atom Heart Mother and Meddle always try to strike with the morbid paranoia of Waters’ poetry, trying to evoke a musical effect much more identifiable with psychedelia). Moreover, Pink Floyd themselves were pioneers of psychedelia with their early albums... and anyway, there’s an enormous abyss between Pink Floyd and DT, a HUGE one... Pink Floyd has, in every single piece of theirs, even the less successful ones, at least until Waters’ departure, a personality, a very precise expressiveness... which DT lacks in even ONE of their pieces.

But I like pop music. They don't. There's a nice difference :-)

As for my exceptions, I definitely take the Rush into account, since both DT and 99% of the remaining "prog metal" groups could easily be summarized within the career of the Canadian trio. And then there's the latest King Crimson, the ones from Thrak, who are not exactly a prog metal band, and precisely because of this, they manage to be much more creative, not to mention the only band where Tony Levin has expressed himself in a memorable way... not like those redundant messes from Liquid Tension Experiment hehehehe ;-)

Hi Giorgetto! I missed you! :-D Otherwise, I wouldn't even know what I'm talking about, right? Yes, yes, but then enlighten me, Giorgetto; for once, at least once, instead of coming here and saying practically nothing, explain your point of view because I've never understood it. It's easy to criticize without giving reasons, but that way you don't have much credibility, just like you never have… Explain, explain. Or should I assume that you wouldn't really know what to say?

SOAP, I understand your bitterness, but the "envy" really doesn't hold water... :-) many have tried ad nauseam in this review to bring this up, how much credibility do you think you have? ...come on, I know very well by now that this is the classic argument that the DT fan brings up when they have nothing to say, when they don't know how to respond at all. If you want to have even a little effect, try to come up with something better, though... come on :-D

Yes, I remember you! :-) It means they pretend to sound refined, very technical, showcasing that, therefore intellectualized, lofty... after all, it's not something they invented; it is very simply the aesthetic of progressive rock itself, which was born to give maturity and "intellectual" elevation to rock... to make it "classical," grandiose, refined, and culturally elevated... to give it that artistic dignity, in short, that was attributed less to rock than to classical music or jazz... certainly, great things have been done in progressive, but this intent of "elevation" has essentially proven to be a failure... the greatness of rock lies precisely in its being "popular," in the sense that anyone can play it, as it is fundamentally "easy," and anyone can create art... of course, this is a generalization, but it's to help understand... once again I tell you: read Lester Bangs, of whom I have ultimately done nothing but summarize his thoughts... he was very unhappy in the era of progressive, and he rediscovered rock with the New Wave of New York... precisely the Ramones, coincidentally... ;-) anyway, I repeat: in progressive, tremendous albums have been made, but the recent "deep dives," like the one by DT, have really picked up the worst... only the most formalistic and exhibitionist aspect, the most technical and conservative.

Of course, you would expect to prove that all my "hate" (a totally misplaced term) towards DT would be motivated by the fact that I generally find Prog Metal awful.. :-) ...I would like not to give you this pathetic satisfaction, but I'll tell you: in fact, I generally find it awful.. with due exceptions, the reason I find it awful is that it is a type of music that is conservative, aesthetic, lacking innovative, modernizing intentions, that is, devoid of originality, that is, devoid of creativity. Like much, much metal that would claim to be the "non plus ultra" when in reality it ends up being a sterile decay into exercise of form, in ostentation of stylistic elements... with this, if you were to demonstrate a minimum of intelligence (and I think you can easily do that), you would understand that this changes absolutely nothing. Moreover, what many DT fans would want to prove is that DT are the best, the unattainable in Rock in general, certainly not exclusively from a sectarian side of metal like "prog metal"...

you still don't get it.. you make a "gender" argument when what I was making was an evaluation of attitude, of aesthetics. you keep talking about "contaminations," when I'm speaking about the fact that there is no real expressive innovation. you are not answering me, or rather, you are responding by placing the discussion on a completely different level from mine... that's why I can make a hypothetical comparison between the DT and the Ramones... I'm not saying they are musically comparable... I'm saying I couldn't care less if a band has composed ten-minute pieces and shows off "envy-inducing" technique... because that in itself means absolutely nothing.. the Ramones revolutionized rock with three chords, the DT couldn't do it despite having far greater expressive possibilities and claiming to make "high" music.. I'm not comparing the two bands, I'm using the Ramones as an extreme model of a band that was original in rock, against a band like DT which, despite endlessly showcasing musical competence, has absolutely poor creative qualities.

As for Queen, I would like you to explain how they changed the history of Pop/Rock, because it’s not clear to me. In any case, I mentioned "We Are the Champions," a song that is definitely not essential, but for me, all of Queen's early albums from "Queen 1" to "A Night at the Opera" deserve absolute respect.