easycure

Hey Lux, you like those big emotions from Built, huh? :-D Hi there!

Nick, something similar happened to me here in Sesto F.no.. :-D There was the legendary "Disco Più" (classic name for a record store from the late '80s) where I discovered all the early Cure, the Smashing Pumpkins, and a ton of other stuff I can't even remember.. since it closed here in Sesto, there are no more record stores.. on the last day it was open, I gave it a book about New Wave to thank them.. P.S. The record: I don't know it but Ian McKaye rocks regardless, I mean as a person :-D Great recommendation!

Furthermore, regarding historical reasons, precisely for the aforementioned intentions, prog conforms in a certain way. And since obviously the aforementioned intentions disappear completely in DT, their music, although formally similar, arises from the opposite path of that of (many) 70s prog groups: there, one refers to a specific form for a precise intention, while in DT any intention is subservient to the form. THIS is the substantial and absolutely logical difference.

@abyss 1) bullshit. As you well know, before prog there was psychedelia, from which prog drew heavily but above all represents an evolution, at least regarding certain aspects: for example, if psychedelia was the music of escapism, of "the journey," of a flight from certain values and/or rules, progressive instead comes to represent the object of this escape/journey... see the "fairy-tale" themes, etc. Furthermore, even musically speaking, prog represents a natural evolution of psychedelia (and more generally of 60s music) in how it conceives rock as fundamentally "music for the mind," the exact opposite of the primordial hedonism of rock; thus, the most obvious conclusion on which progressive is based is that of synthesizing itself with "cultured" genres, being programmatically born as such. Conclusions: with the historical reasons for prog (which I have obviously greatly condensed but which should be viewed in relation to the BILLIONS of impulses that psychedelia provided and that progressive often exploited in a not very creative way), one could write several books, and luckily there wouldn't be a lack of historical reasons... you evidently still suffer from a certain superficiality. However, on DT I perfectly agree with you: the only thing that really differentiates them is having more references. But this fully confirms my opinion: namely, their total uselessness :-) 2) For heaven's sake, what are you saying?? The Ramones were formed in '75, King Crimson are from '69 :-D.. it was obvious that rock would have that evolution; just listen to Iron Butterfly, Red Crayola for the more cerebral aspects, obviously Zappa, the Grateful Dead... the germs of prog are all there... and that's why when prog was born, it was perfectly in tune with its time. Which is obviously NOT the case with DT. P.S. the Ramones were born as a mocking denial of prog... therefore, as a countermeasure, they themselves are a consequence, certainly not contemporaries. 3) I asked TWO different guitar teachers (both conservatory graduates) and both agree that Petrucci is a completely useless guitarist. Except, of course, for those students who make speed their sole priority. As for the fact that he is more metal than prog, you are absolutely right :-D 4) Well, mine was a response to your equally uninsightful statement that certainly rock would need technique. Thanks, I say, maybe 1% is true, the remaining 99% very clearly is not. :-) Moreover, why didn’t you mention your first statement? In that you said that all prog needs technique. But even in this case, it’s not accurate :-)... the Floyd, who are probably one of the greatest bands in that field and beyond, were anything but definable as technical.

Sorry, to reply to you I'll post a "sample" from an interview I read in Blow Up: IAN: "I would say that John is the ideal counterpart to my stylistic tendencies: as much as he is rigorous and balanced, I tend to be instinctive and disorganized."

Indeed. In the realm of sharpness and intelligence, the criticism directed at me is that I haven't even listened to a cover album.. :-D

As for ELP, you chose the worst example... they are actually one of the least significant prog bands, not to mention the sheer technical factor... moreover, your assumption is totally superficial... the prog bands of the '60s and '70s obviously had a historical reason for doing what they did, something that, as you yourself inadvertently mentioned, DT lacks after 30 years... also, let's not talk nonsense, please... Robert Fripp created his own unique guitar style, while Petrucci is just an encyclopedia of 30 years of rock; there’s a huge difference between Fripp's technique and Petrucci's, and Fripp's technique makes way more sense than Petrucci's... plus, the Genesis, who are among the founders of prog, seem tremendously more expressive than DT, who shamelessly copy 40 years of rock... let’s not slide into the most crude historical denial, the difference is very much there... let’s not say nonsense, come on! :-) P.S. "go tell King Crimson and Genesis that technique is useless in rock" oh well, if we're talking about rock in general, then go tell about 10,000 contemporary bands, both past and present, that may have invented genres or movements with a fraction of the technique of KG and Genesis if it matters... :-D

it's not that the bigger something is, the larger shadow it casts; rather, the more something is idolized, the more it projects shadow... it's a different concept ;-)

But "huge" in what sense? ..no, seriously.. I still haven't managed to understand it.. really, come on, huge exactly in what way?

Waters is notoriously a conservatory-level bassist.. and then there's Wright's keyboards, a true virtuoso.. Mason.. wow, maybe he came from jazz? :-D