mista

"Go and have a nice Lord of the Rings marathon." You see, it's Alessio who recommended the movie to us, but we're all doing the marathon except for him, because he is "high on nine consecutive hours of Lord of the Rings," so it's better for him to take a break.

Oh my god! I would notice, I wouldn't notice!!! I got a splash of crap on the keyboard and I messed up.

But then why should we (I mean always we convinced 'merdallari', the category to which all users who posted on this page except Alessio belong) rack our brains searching for original sounds?! It’s much more fun to spend the evenings doing comic book and Lord of the Rings marathons, and then, when you want a boost of life, you just step outside and slaughter those two or three virgins you find roaming around.

We could also attempt to come up with something original (I mean us convinced merdallari) but if we did, either you wouldn't notice, or if you did, you would say:
HEY! But this isn't merdal, guys, you who played it, what do you say you like metal: no, you're wrong, metal isn't original, your music is original and THEREFORE it isn't merdal. Then excuse me, come here, look in this German record store, see that they put your record under ALTERNATIVE, so it doesn't matter if you like merdal and thought you were influenced by Merdal roots, in reality you were exclusively inspired by the punk sounds of Black Flag! Otherwise, how would you explain the musical value of your music?

I would declare the technical knockout.

The usual prejudices about metal, dispensed by the omniscient music expert of the moment. Let's be honest, every good prejudice has at least two requirements: 1. it must have some basis at least in id quod plerumque accidit 2. it must have a certain appeal to support it.
Well, it is undeniable that many metalheads and some bands, at least at first glance, do not seem particularly devoted to the search for the quintessence of musical value, and this is enough to establish the prejudice: "all metal is music for fools and therefore lacks value and/or originality." Then the second requirement is needed for the prejudice to flourish and be expressed (how many prejudices do we hold but do not express because it's not cool to do so, my dear debaserites?). Moreover, it is equally undeniable that supporting the above-mentioned prejudice, in certain niche microcosms of know-it-alls that sometimes even develop on this site, makes one quite cool, and adorns the speaker with a certain aura of wisdom and musical knowledge, especially if at the same time the speaker exhibits tastes in favor of indie or progressive bands or generally towards cultured music. Thus the second requirement is satisfied, and thus the bold prejudice is forged and disseminated.

When you forge an original and inimitable trademark, you can also afford to play more or less the same piece over and over and still rock the world. Of course, in addition to rocking the world, after a few albums, you also risk wearing people out.

Mom, what a crazy discussion; I can’t even read it all... I'll try to give my opinion: first of all, I wouldn't say that Metallica invented thrash; let's say they wrote the most significant and successful albums (some might say the best, but I don’t agree) of that particular genre they helped to create. Technically, the early Metallica were at a generally decent level: Cliff Burton is technically the best and one of the most influential metal bassists of all time, Kirk Hammett, although capable of writing very impactful and memorable solos, isn’t anything special technically, Hetfield is a decent rhythm player (but inferior, for example, to Mustaine) and a mediocre vocalist, and Ulrich, finally, has an exceptional drive and punch, but his parts certainly don’t shine for technical complexity. It's obvious that Metallica haven’t gone down in history for their technique, but for having written songs that skillfully combined catchy melodies and riffs with exhilarating violence and anger. I don’t believe that you need technique to make history; think about Motörhead! Honestly, I don’t understand the references to bands like Domine, Blind Guardian, and Virgin; even if we stick to the technical level, we should still compare bands from the same period and genre. Anyway, I don’t understand what Domine - a decent band, but nothing special even technically - has to do with sacred monsters like Metallica or Blind. Regards.

Mom, what a crazy discussion, I can't even read it all... I'll try to share my two cents: first of all, I wouldn't say Metallica invented thrash; let's say they wrote the most significant and successful albums (some might call them the best, but I don't agree) of that particular genre they helped to create. Technically, the early Metallica were at a generally decent level: Cliff Burton is technically the best and is also one of the most influential metal bassists of all time, Kirk Hammet, while capable of writing very striking and memorable solos, isn’t anything special technically; Hetfield is a decent rhythm guitarist (but inferior, for example, to Mustaine) and a mediocre singer, while Ulrich, finally, has an exceptional punch and a great slap but his parts certainly don't shine for technical complexity. It’s obvious that Metallica didn't go down in history for their technique, but for having written songs that skillfully combined melodies and catchy riffs with thrilling violence and rage. I don't believe that technique is a requirement to be remembered; think of Motorhead! Honestly, I don't understand the references to bands like Domine, Blind Guardian, and Virgin; even if we stick to the technical aspect, a comparison should still be made among bands of the same period and genre. Anyway, I don't get what Domine—a fairly decent band but honestly, nothing much even technically—has to do with legends like Metallica or Blind. Cheers.

On Wednesday, I have rehearsals and I'll propose it to the others in the group, iside. Thanks for the invite;-)