easycure

My intention was certainly provocative, I admit it (but to understand this provocation, one would have to immerse oneself in those "times" and the reviews that came out during that period), but I never would have expected this chaotic flurry of responses... and then do you think that if Squonk's review had been more restrained, anything would have changed? ..naive :-D do you think that giving it a two instead of a one would have made a difference? Or if the review had less scathing tones? I strongly doubt it... the "heresy" is (was?) to speak poorly of the band in question, not to speak about it more or less calmly... this is what shocks fans regardless of the tone... in my opinion, nothing would have changed... and I, for that matter, didn't have any particular questions like that while writing it... but come on guys, we all know how it works by now... on a site that is by definition free, where everyone can write what they want, reviews are mainly posted as a pastime. Is there really a need to overthink it? :-D

Ah, but weren't you supposed to close the discussion from above? :-D ...not that I mind if you keep writing here, on the contrary... I didn't say you were resentful; rather, I suggested the idea that you might have chosen this persistent "demonstration" of my resentment precisely because, perhaps, you are moved by, let's not say resentment, which is obviously an inappropriate word, but rather by a certain annoyance... Anyway, I see that you've changed the topic now. Essentially, you're focusing on the fact that I would have been uncivil, and therefore, motivated by resentment, right? If you allow me, that seems even more absurd... but what does uncivil mean? Am I behaving uncivilly with you? Friend, there's a huge difference between responding appropriately and being uncivil, come on... the more time passes and the more posts there are, the more it seems to me that you're playing deaf and clinging to even less plausible arguments... and then... who said that my opinion is moderate? Look, I don’t care at all about proving that. I only argue that it can be substantiated. If I hadn't had my reasons to think differently, I would have never started writing, that's for sure... THIS is the difference I wanted to highlight (but that you, as usual, have perfectly overlooked): the fact that I provide reasons, not the childish a prioris that 80% (I estimate that seems accurate, it's all written above) of those who have written here and reviewed the DT have filled their mouths with. So this is the difference; therefore, your earlier thesis that my analysis and that of many fans were antithetical yet still the same doesn't hold. And they are personalisms, once again, I've never denied that. Still: I simply want to emphasize that some "personalism," anyway supported by historical, aesthetic (big word, I admit), even logical reasons has led to this. Then, it would be absurd if they weren't all personalisms; obviously, they are. And better that way, it's all my own flour and not flour from others. :-D

"that is to say that where I have limited myself to a MUSICAL discussion, there are people who have written here trying at all costs to make it personal" ...sorry :-)

Shirubvr, let's clarify then... I had gone far beyond the considerations you made in your last posts: I thought you meant "antipodes" in terms of setting. If we want to talk about content, the fact that my review was at the antipodes compared to other reviews on the DT seems like a striking obviousness... Moreover, considerations like the one in Squonk's last post really make me laugh :-D ...I mean, do you really think the substance of a discussion would change just by putting a "in my opinion" in front of it? Come on, let’s move past these childish things. It’s OBVIOUS that anything is an opinion of the person writing it: in fact, shirubvr, no one has ever denied that the review was a personal opinion; once again, though, you clearly didn’t want to understand what I wrote (am I the one avoiding the arguments, huh? Mah mah, matters of perspective just to stick to the theme): the difference, assuming both opinions are personal as it’s OBVIOUS they are, lies in the fact that at least I tried to substantiate mine, which is difficult to say for most of the remaining 50-plus reviews on the DT... Once again, a touch of objectivity would be welcome: there’s a tendency to equal everything with everything just to try to prove the alleged “illegitimacy” of the review in an obviously biased manner. Anyway, let me repeat: the argument that they would be personal and unproven considerations is an obviousness that makes no sense: in fact, one could say that about any criticism or any note on music as on any art form. Therefore, I understand even less what is clearly a hostility toward my review. I can only think that it must have bothered you quite a bit. I continue to believe that we should reconsider where the "bitterness" lies :-) P.S. for Squonk: and do you think that what was said about "the spirit carries on" being played at the father's funeral was a plausible statement? ...besides the fact that it's VERY likely nonsense, even if it were true, you provided the most fitting example of what shirubvr fails to understand (or admit): that where I limited myself to a personal discussion, some people wrote here trying at all costs to make it personal. Because even if it were true, who cares, with all due respect: should I not then say that this album sucks and explain my reasons? Ridiculous. That’s where the bitterness is seen, in such delirious comments; because we're talking about delirium. Even if it were true, I would never write something so private in a forum, a bit of decorum :-D ...it's in these cases that the limit is clearly exceeded. That I exceeded it with the review seems like such an absurd thing to assert that, in the end, I have the impression of reasoning about nothing (and indeed we’ve been going in circles for days, with shirubvr stubbornly going around in little incisive topics and me always responding with the same things).

point 1) once again, no. It’s not true. It’s not true that my review is at odds with the others, and it’s hardly demonstrable that it is "subjective." I will try to explain this to you objectively: the reviews on DT that I’m referring to are more or less all the same and are based on sentences like: "in this song the DT sound magnificent, with the usual unattainable technique we have now become accustomed to. At minute x there’s a beautiful passage, with an emotional vocal line, followed by an astonishing guitar solo." The style, you will agree, is this: it is an a priori style, it doesn’t explain why all the various passages and embellishments should contribute to the "beauty" of the piece…it limits itself to mere descriptions that lack any critical substance. Now, far from me considering my review linguistically and thematically more elaborated (which in fact I consider one of the worst I’ve written after three years), I must acknowledge that at least I logically tended to provide a justification for my considerations. This justification was based on the assumption that the DT were compositionally grounded in a host of plagiarisms from various bands and periods. This is a fact that is OBJECTIVELY established and cited and demonstrated more than once, as lux, who when he started writing was a fervent supporter of the DT, can attest. Then, as many have done, one can argue that these plagiarisms are intentional citations or not, or that they are meaningful or not, but the (albeit superficial) “thesis” of the review at least has a logical value that is entirely missing from previous reviews on DT. Thus, it is not at all at odds; it is at least based on a minimum of plausible motivation. Moreover, like many others, you base your arguments solely on the review. But in three years of discussions, we have moved on to certainly more articulated themes. If you want, I can also post the famous "letter" I wrote to a critic about the DT that summarizes these three years of discussions. Point 2) see point 1: it doesn’t seem to me at all to be a review at odds with the others, perhaps in style, but not in content, which seems to me certainly much more relevant. Point 3) If I have not written about the DT anymore, it is only because this site is running out of reviews on DT. But I would still write and abundantly. Because this is a free country and because I sincerely feel I have interesting things to say (I repeat: after three years of very stimulating discussions, as you evidently fail to notice) about the band. That these things are not laudatory but derogatory is an issue I don’t deny but that doesn’t seem to me to be labeled per se as "resentment" (in fact, the more I think about it, the more absurd it seems). I prefer to see it as sacred democracy, and perhaps we should be thankful that someone sees it differently in a group toward which average reactions tend to be somewhat standardized. Cheers!

Epifani, there are many forms of arrogance. I don't like those who take someone else's thoughts and distort them to their own liking just for the sake of proving who's right and who's wrong... (moreover, you continue to do it with an, I would say, absurd presumption, showing no regard for my clarifications) If this isn't arrogance... you said something stupid about what I wrote. It's stupid, plain and simple. At least have the decency not to respond further. But instead, one even feels permitted to act hypocritically, babbling about civility, and what's worse, there's not even the dignity to take responsibility for one's actions I notice.. ouch, ouch, ouch, this really isn't working, Epifani.

But no, Shirubvr, we’re not on the same page. Point 1) "Why don’t you just do a 'LOOK AND PASS' to the fans' outpourings?" Sorry, but if you're writing here I assume you've noticed how it works: a review is followed by a discussion. So it was in my interest (passion? fun? no! Obviously, and it still hasn't been understood why for Shirubvr it becomes hatred! Well, come on, take life a bit more philosophically :-D) to respond to those who were writing to me. Right? Be that as it may, when someone writes something personal, they want to respond to those who have complaints or observations to make. But once again, these "naturalities" don't seem to suit Shirubvr. Point 2) "Easy found it natural to express his opinion on a group that for some time had been far too subject to adulation (AS IF IT WERE A BAD THING TO LOVE A GROUP)." Wrong. Wrong again. Don’t you read my posts well? Or are you just showing that you only see what you want to see? But I have told you at least three times that my response was certainly not about the adulation per se, but about the fact that, as it seems you yourself have noted, these adulations were almost always completely uncritical, incomprehensible, meaningless. THAT is what motivated me to write, but you look for embellishments in everything, you are desperately trying to find a flaw that isn't there, you’re clinging in a way that is now almost fanatic (yes. I have yet to see a comment on the substance, for example, just on the method). Point 3) you don’t need to write a review, but you've already wasted time on comments much longer than a hypothetical review. Therefore, your supposed "superiority," if I may say so, is a bit laughable. Besides, you keep quoting phrases somewhat out of context (because, as usual, you decontextualize them, and I assure you, they’re almost completely incomprehensible even to me who wrote them) and you keep circling the same topics despite the identical points I have already addressed, and you expect to make me believe that I'm the one dodging the discussion. But come on, this is a bit hard to pass off :-D ..I’ve already told you, if you want, take it as advice, there’s little that can be demonstrated: this alleged "resentment" that you've been flaunting for days is something so heavy that it’s hard to justify over something like appreciating or not appreciating an album. Maybe the only reason could be, I don’t know, that a girl who liked DT left me, or other nonsense of that sort (which by themselves would hardly justify it). But obviously, if something like that had happened, you wouldn’t ever know, so I repeat: there’s nothing you can prove. If you want to hold on to your beliefs, hold on to them, they evidently comfort you (I don't know well for what reason).

Epiphany, now with all due respect, you're really beginning to break my balls. I understand that it can be difficult to comprehend and even accept viewpoints that differ from your own, but distorting them to resemble YOUR viewpoints is something I can't stand; it's literally terrifying. Point 1) I haven't equated Jews with pedophiles nor would I ever dream of comparing them to the disappeared. I compared your grotesquely abject inquisitorial attitude (yes, you, the equidistant observer) with the same approach that various executioners in the past used to target different categories of people. Now, this is an important difference, so listen for once: my comparison is not of different categories of people but of the total analogies between YOUR view of pedophiles and how rather unsettling figures at other times have viewed and treated OTHER types of people. Got it? Understood? And it’s not hard, come on, a bit of sharpness, for heaven's sake, and read my damn posts carefully. Point 2) and you prattle on about respectability? You, whose only solution is "to repress"? Guys, having a face like an ass is evidently something hard to recognize. At least I try to make 2+2 equal 4; you clearly can't say the same for the banality of your "solution" to the pedophilia problem. Sorry for the outburst, but when it comes to it, it comes to it... people who pretend not to understand or hear (and I hope that's the issue; otherwise, it would be serious) definitely don't know how to discuss.

you keep projecting, not being objective. You only see what you want to see... but then be happy, if you’re convinced I don’t want to take that away from you. Yet there’s nothing demonstrable, the resentment is not proven: you yourself emphasize that I started off quite calmly. But then excuse me if the DT fans were the first to be resentful if not uncivil, why should I be the one who simply responded in kind? :-D ..well, well, I continue to see very little objectivity. Also, I have never said that I wrote this review because I felt offended by the others. Once again, as always since you started writing, it’s you who brings up terms that I have not used, that I never dreamed of using, nor is it demonstrable that I showed them in my writing. From this, a logical conclusion comes to mind: perhaps you feel offended and somehow resentful towards this review? Because if that were not the case, what reason would there be to seek them all out just to demonstrate that I was motivated by hate? You could have "looked and moved on"... and yet no. Well, well... To return to the above, it simply came naturally to me that after a review a week always the same on this group, I thought of writing one myself. Especially since, after reading so many (three years ago there were many fewer reviews than now, and the new ones were impossible not to notice), it spontaneously occurred to me to listen to these DTs again, and even more so, consequently, I found so many and such exalted words completely incomprehensible. That’s why it came naturally for me to write. Once again, this logical sequence of motivation is not at all contemplated by you :-D well, well, and again well, I really don’t know what and why you are so stubbornly trying to demonstrate. It seems little or nothing, with all due respect :-) bye

The thing that surprises me more and more, Epifani, is that you were amazed when I said that your speech was "pseudo-Nazi" :-D excuse me, but at least have the courage to admit it, because we are getting closer and closer... in my opinion, the real tragedy is not knowing. For goodness’ sake, I’ve never dealt with a pedophile either (who knows, maybe I’ve met some but they didn’t declare themselves), but from your words, I continue to notice a pure and simple understanding based on stereotypes, based on a conglomerate of news from television. A whole category of people (who as individuals have billions of different shades from one another) tends to be lumped together, and this lump is simply wanted to be destroyed. The equation is exactly the same as that of the Nazis with the Jews or, indeed, with homosexuals. So to me, your speech seems extremely dangerous, because it is the rhetoric of all executioners. I remember studying for an exam a beautiful book titled "The Psychology of Inertia and Solidarity." There was this chilling testimony from an Argentine general who made daily trips over the ocean to throw still-living but sedated Desaparecidos into the sea. He had no remorse; he did it as if it were the most natural thing in the world because he categorized them as a "type" or "class" of people utterly abject, who therefore did not deserve to be regarded as any other human being. Then one day it happened that a desaparecido woke up ahead of time and grabbed his leg. That very simple gesture, for just a moment, that insignificance, shook him and tormented him for the rest of his life. Because for the first time he realized what he truly had before him. We should always seek to know. Or at least imagine to know with a minimum of empathy.