easycure

Dream Theater are among the pioneers of Progressive Metal, a genre that synthesizes elements drawn from progressive rock with stylistic features typical of Metal, in its various forms. Compared to Rush, Dream Theater belong to a different generation and obviously have an approach that encompasses a broader range of references. However, their insight is far from original; they simply jump on the bandwagon of those bands that, nearly a decade earlier, made stylistic crossover the foundation of their avant-garde. Even limited to the closed circle of metal, this underlying intuition could easily be attributed to Metallica, where various factors (the much drier drumming, the generally less theatrical and more direct song structure, the hyper-accelerated riff) are all elements that break down the barriers between metal and hardcore, two genres that are not only different but even at opposite ends. Still, this is just the first issue. The bottom line is that Dream Theater are completely lacking in originality and, even more fundamentally, in personality: their approach is substantially conservative, a sort of widespread revivalism of thirty years of rock music, an attitude of hired guns who know everything and cite it more or less vaguely or abstractly. In fact, their operation, when it’s not limited to pseudo-plagiarism, consists of extracting a dogma and re-presenting it in a decontextualized manner, a kind of "abstraction" of a stylistic element—an abstraction which, as I'll explain, has purely and merely performative, show-off value. For now, limiting ourselves to the first point, that of specific “pseudo-plagiarisms,” I wanted to draw your attention to two tracks from the album “Metropolis Part 2: Scenes from a Memory”: the first, “Regression," is a blatant and overly explicit callback to “Outside the Wall” by Pink Floyd. The second, “The Spirit Carries On,” in the part of the central solo, not only clearly refers to Gilmour’s solo in “Shine On You Crazy Diamond” but even plagiarizes it in a passage where Petrucci precisely copies a bending from Gilmour.

my one little objective? mmmm mmmm, I've been pondering for three years now (yes, I've been writing here since 2004) about my review of Metropolis Part 1 on why I consider the Dt probably the worst group in the history of rock, this album included... but if you and Gilmour are keen to know more specifically my reasons, I will post a letter I wrote to a renowned critic where I explained my point of view; it perfectly summarizes three years of ruminations:

x Know-it-all: I don't really know what Ramazzotti has to do with this either (aside from, in my opinion, the complete inconsistency shared by both "artists" in question). Read carefully what I wrote: I said that the terms used in the review could easily apply to Ramazzotti. For example, the "heart that fills with indescribable sensations," the "heartbreaking ballad with melancholic tones," the "melodies even more beautiful thanks to the sax solos" (this might fit Vasco Rossi better than Ramazzotti, hehehe :-D), the beautiful piece just for piano and voice "moving, melancholic, and poignant"… really, from all of this, I don't understand what DT has more than Pausini or Ramazzotti, apart from obviously inflating everything with 30 different genres and a speed that’s certainly reserved only for academics… :-) but I don’t mean to criticize the review, because practically ALL reviews of DT are written like this. So it raises a doubt for me: is there really nothing more to say about this group? …because if that were the case, an opinion like mine would be abundantly confirmed ;-D bye.

Why are the reviews of DT all the same (except for mine and the one on Dark Side of the Moon by a poet hehe :-D)? And why could the praises listed in the review of this album apply to Eros Ramazzotti? ..oh well, besides the obvious technical proficiency of course ;-)

I find it to be a completely useless film. That's why I won't even rate it. Avoiding sterile and therefore pointless questions of form (perhaps sordid given the subject? .. I'll refrain from commenting on that), such as "the splatter scenes are well made," it seems to me that a film like this has no reason to exist: if it wants to be a philological film, while failing in its significant at least presumed inaccuracies, then it's useless since the story is quite famous and the Gospels can be easily read without much effort. If it wants to be a representation of Christ in his more "earthly" sense, then it is again entirely superfluous, not to mention hypocritical, as it skips many passages of the Gospels themselves, highlighting only the brutal depiction of pain; does Gibson want to make the viewer participate in the same suffering experienced by Christ? Thus, Gibson is also presumptuous, because in a fundamentally passive art form like cinema, this kind of engagement becomes morbid voyeurism, rather than catharsis; it is also a superficial identification, equivalent to sensitizing oneself to the theme of madness through Cristicchi's song, a form of consumption so trivial that it leaves virtually no trace. No real torment is provoked in the viewer, as blood and more blood are splattered in their face without any sensitivity. There is no originality, there is no point of view, there is no gaze, there is no real feeling; perhaps Giona Nazzaro is right when in an article on "apocalypto" he argues that ultimately Gibson makes intrinsically "political" films: it's true. His is a bigoted and stale conservatism, it is the very phenomenology of immobility. For some, it may even be beautiful; as for me, it evokes absolutely nothing.

Good job nonsoloprog! You noticed it! Scaruffi from 8 to the DT.. so any intelligible being would say that I couldn't care less about Scaruffi, just read my reviews, anyway.. but obviously it suits Sirbony to believe that, after all, THERE CAN'T be anyone besides Scaruffi who diminishes the Beatles ehehaha ;-D

"confirming the bullshit and replacing it with more..." :-D ahaheheh bullshit that you, first and foremost, can't respond to even a single line... but why do you keep talking? It's been at least three posts (and I want to be nice, I'll give you credit for the first two) that any human reading you might get the impression of either facing a fool or an elementary school child... I hope for you it's the first option, in any case, it's not doing you any good. But to each their own; it must be a matter of sadism eheheheh ;-D

Something doesn't add up, something isn't right :-D ..but didn't you hate Scaruffi? Now you're going to check in real-time with him to answer me? ahahaheheheh, how sad :-D ..you see, Dick Dale has always played instrumental music (P.S. have you ever heard Dick Dale? He did many of the experiments that made the Beatles famous about EIGHT years before them), the Beach Boys, if we want to stay Scaruffian, combine the melodicism of the 1950s vocal groups with primal rock'n'roll. They thus contribute to creating surf as it will be understood in the following years, that is, sung surf, but above all, something that I must emphasize and that you overlook since you always dodge my posts, with this insight they are effectively among the forerunners and inventors of pop. This was when your beloved Beatles were imitating some American rocker in their little basement in Liverpool. Is the concept clear? Just to keep the discussion on track from where we started.. come on, dodge less and be more relevant, but above all, review more of the "hated" Scaruffi, because we're not there yet eheheh ;-)

Ah, and here comes another good nonsense from sirbony :-D: the Beach Boys combine surf rock with pop. Now, first point: you criticize me for using labels and then you use them just as much; something doesn’t add up, perhaps your labels are nicer than mine? Well, I don’t know, they seem the same to me heheheh ;-D second point: the definition of Surf was actually born thanks to the Beach Boys, the band that invented Surf, and the definition of pop didn’t even exist when the Beach Boys came into being, but it made sense precisely because of them. Now the difference between you and me doesn’t seem to be in using or not using labels (something you also flaunt with undeniable, albeit a bit hypocritical, pride); it seems rather that you use these so-called "labels" without the slightest understanding of the matter. Come on, brush up on "labels" before you say any more nonsense... Mmmmmm "The Beatles have done too much and too many different things to be classified into a single genre." There it is! Finally! The legendary cliché I’ve been waiting for to understand the magnificence of the Beatles :-D... now it’s clear that you haven’t read encyclopedias; this is one of those typical clichés paraded on "happy Sunday" by Pippo Baudo (or whoever, you probably know better than me ;-D) ...but I repeat, you insist on calling me Scaruffiano, and so I stubbornly continue to respond: before spewing out so many presumptuous nonsense, wouldn’t it be better to listen to a few more records? See you soon! ;-)

What a disgusting punk piece made by Dream Theater... it's clear they don't understand a damn thing eheh ;-D