easycure

x Saputello: my reference to the DT was to say that if the wealth of arrangement were a valid and sufficient metric for judging an album, then Dream Theater would easily be labeled as one of the greatest bands in the history of rock. Something that I hope anyone with a modicum of common sense would NEVER support. As for your second point, you are partly mistaken: I would never talk about or have ever talked about a single type of music, that would horrify me; I spoke of some criteria that, in my opinion, no form of art can overlook: that is, I repeat, originality (which at the purely scientific level is the foundational aspect of creativity itself, and I hope no one has the courage to say that art can exist without being based on the concept of "creativity"), the uniqueness of expression, innovation (or modernity, which is ultimately an intrinsic expansion of originality), the form serving expression, and various branches of these concepts. For me, these are things that cannot be ignored, and I repeat, I have come to these conclusions because I have listened to albums that brilliantly touch upon peaks in these criteria. It is obvious that it is a somewhat "systemic" view, but if there were not at least a bit of systematization, what sense would it make, and how could the very concept of "critique" be possible?

This album is an absolute masterpiece of the '70s and of rock as a whole. It's incredible: Frankie Teardrop is one of the most shocking pieces ever heard: it's metamusica, it's theater... of absolute monsters.

It's not that an album is modern just because it has "new things" in it... because that would still be an exercise in form. I'm talking about expressive framework, poetic approach, a unique feeling that is personal and thus original, in relation to which modernity is a subsequent discourse, no less important but from which it does not transcend. Moreover, it’s a matter of approach, or if you prefer, ambition. There is nothing in Arcade Fire that suggests a push towards modernity; at best, as you yourself admit, it is merely an "updating," thus a revisionist work when not revivalist. And I should accept this as "beautiful music"? I certainly won't bend to that, out of respect for the TRUE masterpieces.

What does “not even this is enough” mean? What may seem to you like a quality song can seem to me like a complete pile of crap. This is because every judgment is still partially subjective as well as unique, shaped by the cultural and experiential baggage of each individual. In other words, the criteria for evaluation change: to you, the skill of the arrangements seems fundamental… who knows… so are the Dream Theater the greatest band in history? I didn’t say that the skill of arrangements should be disregarded; I merely said that I would certainly never consider it fundamental for evaluating a track. Because if that were the case, the punk music that you first cited (and not without reason) would deserve to be completely dismissed solely because it lacks good and refined arrangements, which is clearly absurd. No one has said that music is a finished art, but certainly, if we exalt bands like Arcade Fire, we contribute to definitively killing at least that genre/movement/approach that goes by the name of "Rock". Because you really have to lack historical sensibility to realize that even just 10 years ago, albums that were deemed “masterpieces” were light years away (and obviously superior) to bland proposals like the one in question. At least there was still a sense of modernity. At least, on a much more basic level, there was an understanding of the effort towards originality as something foundational to the very concept of art. Stuff like Arcade Fire seems to respect only the concept of being good performers; there is no contextualization, no historical reference, no absolute standard of judgment: thus, there is an intrinsic admission of mediocrity in not wanting to consider the very evolution of a certain way of experiencing music. Because in its lack of historicity, an analysis like those commonly done on Arcade Fire totally negates criteria like originality to turn instead to purely formal issues. I would like to know your criteria, for example: what is it, to make “beautiful songs”? So explain to me, exactly what distinguishes Pausini from Arcade Fire?

Well.. as far as I'm concerned, have I ever mentioned that it's an overly hyped and successful group? I couldn't care less, except for the fact that if it's so hyped, it becomes paradigmatic for my considerations. I don’t claim that we should completely disregard past references (no one has ever done that, and it wouldn't make sense), I rather spoke of "references that are too heavy," meaning references that have never been surpassed, in other words, the usual group without a spine, without personality, whose only difference compared to many others seems to be, as Alias said, the great skill in arrangement/sound... Yes, who cares, I add, if this were a reasonable criterion for judgment, we would still all be listening to progressive or glam from 30 years ago. Moreover, it's clear that by "exercise in form" I certainly don't mean the production, another element totally NOT relevant to the quality of the album. I was referring, as mentioned, to the refinement, the arrangements, in short, to their intent in constructing the piece, the only true constituent of their not precisely metaphysical musical proposal. They simply seem useless to me... then, as is obvious, they can be liked, of course, and they can be excessively hyped by the audience and critics; good for them, but if I have my reasons to consider them vomit-inducing, I have them, period. :-D

I love Michael Mann (I will post a review soon), but this is really a pointless pile of nonsense.

When I was in New York, I went to Coney Island just to see the home of the Warriors :-D an absolute masterpiece.

Me too. The first one made me sick, but that's a personal opinion; aside from that, Arcade Fire seem to me like an exemplification of the intrinsic flaws of music in recent years: pure exercise of form, the usual presence of references that are far too heavy, an inability to be truly modern, an inability to construct a real personality; the measure of judgment for their beauty is a measure strictly related to issues of skill and ability in constructing artifices that are as complex and/or refined and/or more or less sophisticated and intellectual as possible. I end up asking myself: is this the purpose and essence of rock? Because if we're still talking about rock in every way, to me, Arcade Fire (like many others but even more than others) seem like a beautiful and good aberration.

beautiful!

Poletti, don’t worry, I was just joking, did you see the smiley face.. ;-) It takes much more to call someone snobbish, but your attitude at least in this review leans a bit in that direction for me.. that of A Trip to the Moon was a provocation: now you give it 5 for its historical value, which is undeniable; yet it is also a film that, like Star Wars, plays wonderfully with the image (to simplify a lot, I admit, but they certainly share a certain common sense), so this challenges the presumed thesis that science fiction is solely understood as a driver of profound reflections, just as the fact that Star Wars itself is the film that reduces science fiction to a mere toy: even this second statement is historically false. Moreover, you keep emphasizing the special effects as the only true component of "Star Wars".. but this is now a cliché that does not do justice to the high intellectual ideals that drive you... the classic "it’s all special effects" which in one way or another, whether you like it or not, cannot alone carry a film that is grand in its structure.