easycure

Oh yes, it's difficult, but even more so it's pointless. And anyway, their logic is Franco's logic... or isn't it? But Franco had expressive purposes, even if he didn't always succeed in his experimental intentions; certainly at times he can be defined as overly ambitious... what are they? What do they do? What do they want to do? What mark do they leave? Nothing.

Yes, yes, YES! How wonderful, come on, give me another one!

Omega, but then it's you who doesn't understand what I'm saying! Your last statement is actually the perfect demonstration of everything I've said.. If someone who knows nothing about technique can understand them, it's precisely because the DTs peddle easy melodies as if they were the late East 17! ; ) ...anyone can grasp them, because a melody like that of Spirit carries etc. is so laden with rhetoric that it can get into the ears of anyone who has only listened to radio DJ their whole life.. and even the more complex pieces follow the same logic... trivial chord progressions, inconsistent compositions, just inflated at the arrangement level, easy stuff, beneath the useless veneer, trivial stuff.

It seems to me that they are totally lacking in style. No personality, no originality, nothing, empty, hot air. I repeat, they play a lot with genres, they can do anything, but they're zero, pure speculation, nothingness. And even in the lyrics, it seems to me that the Skiantos made more sense; at least they were well placed in outlining the coordinates of a generation, and it seems to me they never did it in a banal way... the Elii, on the other hand, seem like mere populists to me, pure effect, no content. It’s not about whether they’re nonsensical or not; anything could work, the point is that they are nothing.

What the hell, are you elementary school kids??!! Don’t you see that down there, yes right here below, below where you write your nonsense, there’s an option that says "I never want to receive notifications when someone comments on this review" ...very straightforward, very clear.. now go there, follow the instructions, so you can be sure that no one will bother you anymore, and most importantly, you won’t be bothering me and everyone else who still wants to comment... it’s not hard. Damn, it feels like I’m dealing with a bunch of underdeveloped people..

As for the issue of definitions, as I interpret the term "rock," it is clear that metal, progressive, and the fusion of the two are all subgenres of rock itself. Once I dealt with a metalhead (without naming names) who insisted that Metal is a completely different story compared to Rock... sure, right.. If Chuck Berry hadn't existed, I'd love to see what Iron Maiden would have come up with... it's obvious that the canons are the same; if you take the term Rock in its broad definition, it’s clear that DT falls fully within it, just as any punk band does... they all share the same roots, they are all subgenres of the same family.

Yes, but be careful: Ok, maybe sometimes I’ve exaggerated and that can muddy the waters, but I said that in rock you can disregard technique, not that you MUST disregard it, there's a big difference... Genesis, like, I don’t know, Karate, like Area, are very technical but also very expressive... but you can disregard it... take for example the Pixies (same example)... and I doubt that Black Francis would have had the same wonderful, amateur, crazy guitar style if he had studied for ten years in conservatory... no no, he would definitely have had a totally different approach; learning patterns and patterns and patterns of interpretation, you know how much personality that makes you lose... technique is not simply the SUM of notions, technique (like any form of schematization) completely changes the meaning of the information you interpret; in the worst sense, it’s equivalent to a stereotype, or even a prejudice... often and willingly, as mentioned, it can be counterproductive, it doesn’t HAVE to be, but it CAN be!

Well, I don't know... I believe I play the drums quite well (and I've also taken a few years of lessons), otherwise I probably wouldn't have played in London, Dublin, at the Rolling Stone in Milan, and places like that... :-) My analysis is purely descriptive; without going back to listing the HUNDREDS of technically inept bands that have created masterpieces, I’ll just say that it depends on the purpose: music schools are great for those who play a certain type of music, classical, or jazz, genres that are so inherently linked to technique that they create their own technicality. But music schools that teach how to play rock are pathetic… they might be useful for a year to learn the basics, but then they’re just useless if not counterproductive... What should I learn at a music school if I play, for example, guitar (the second instrument that I also play)? To do solos, tapping, palm muting? Those things are useless; 80% of the solos in rock history have a purely referential purpose, pure expression of technique or filler for a piece that's too short... They certainly don't teach me how the hell Kevin Shields managed to produce those crazy sounds in "Isn't Anything," they don’t teach me how Brian Jones came up with that simple yet brilliant riff for Satisfaction, they don't teach me how to play like Reeves Gabrels, like Black Francis, they don't teach you personality, style, because no one can teach you that in the strict sense; rather, they fit you into a style that is already a cliché, standardized, and that’s supposed to be playing the guitar... I'm referring to ROCK, it's worth emphasizing that... where technique, I repeat, is essentially inessential.

I believe that Gigi D'Alessio's group has technique in abundance, but the fact that what they play is obscenely simple is another matter... In any case, you obviously haven't read my post above... So let's talk about the "great" technique of the Beatles or the Pixies (to take an example), and let me understand where there would have been groups greater than they were if they had studied at the Boston school, or in any other factory of performers... The point is that not only would they not have been greater than they were, but they would have also been immensely LESS great; they would have been trapped in useless schemes, they would have had an enormously less synthetic way of understanding music, and thus presumably less communicative, they would not have had such a divergent and open idea, but would have excluded a priori solutions that derive their expressive strength and originality precisely from their naivety... In short, they would have lost almost everything that made them great.

It depends on what you mean by "who knows what"... I was saying that in Rock you certainly don’t need "who knows what" in terms of technique to create great things. To a technical discussion, I refer my "who knows what"... after all, isn’t that the great lesson of rock? Why is it such a "popular" form of art (in the sense that everyone, if they want, can DO IT and not just LISTEN to it)? Because it doesn’t necessarily require ten years of study at a conservatory, breaking your back studying sheet music and music theory.. one can pick up a guitar and go for it... it takes passion, obviously talent, awareness, intelligence (which is why my "who knows what" cannot be extended beyond the strictly technical discussion), but it can be done with few resources and little study. Take the Beatles, Electric Prunes, 13th Floor Elevators, Velvet Underground, Ramones, Sonic Youth, Pixies, Husker Du, all of Punk, all of Indie, rock is music that looks to substance, often even in its more elaborate forms (a lot of psychedelia is absolutely instinctive), this is its greatness, and what legitimizes it as a form of art with absolute dignity.