Luca-LJ

Frankly, I don't have examples on hand, and nothing useful comes to mind right now, but often works have been unanimously celebrated not for their technical execution, but solely for their underlying idea or innovative stylistic elements. I've often seen cases like this in classical music, but unfortunately, none come to mind at the moment. These are definitely important works, that much is certain. The musician is the one who organizes sounds (even aleatoric music is a way of organizing sounds, although it may seem paradoxical), and the general aim is to awaken sensations and emotions in the listener. There are so many sensations and so many emotions to explore, and numerous ways to engage with each one, and the value of the musician is seen in the effectiveness of their music in this regard: if I want to move the listener and succeed, I'm good, that's all! Sometimes a work can be interesting even if the author is a complete incompetent (the Shaggs created disorienting music that can be very evocative, but this effect was purely accidental; they didn’t know how to play, and therefore their music came out "unintentionally" outside of the norms. I could make a similar argument for Black Sabbath: they revolutionized the sound of Cream and other bands of the time simply because Iommi was incompetent, but in doing so, they created a very unique sound that influenced all generations of hard&heavy musicians that followed).

The Battles don't seem like fools to me; they are excellent musicians! Their music isn't as simple as you think. Personally, I really can't imagine judging a musician solely based on virtuosity or technical performances: if we did that, we would be spitting on the giants of music.

Well, I like both groups, but, you see, Dream Theater are among the revivalists we were talking about earlier! They do their job very well, but that stuff already existed (still a great band, though!). These guys frankly promise something more, but, I repeat, I need to listen to them better: in the past, I’ve often overestimated a musician based on enthusiasm (just look at my review of Aquefrigide, for example). Giovamura, don’t stay away from modern music; I often don’t understand it either, but if I had immediately rejected everything that wasn’t clear to me from the start, I would now be listening to Oasis.

Yeah, they’ve put "post-" and "-core" everywhere; they even went overboard coining the term "postcore"!
Well, you can't command the "core," but the "post"?

Let's say that the previous works could have been enough, but this definitely doesn't do any harm (it's certainly up to par, but I have a thing for novelty, and every now and then I have absurd expectations, like that bands never make more than two similar albums). I only intervened to ask you one thing: how much of Iceland, musically speaking, is there in Sigur Ros? For example, are there references to the local folk? Unfortunately, I know practically nothing about this country.

In my opinion, this is not a fruitless controversy; if someone comes along and trashes something I really appreciate, it sparks a glimmer of hope in my eyes: who knows what someone like that has to offer! At this point, I'm all ears!
Regarding the age-old question of "de gustibus," I obviously agree with you, but I believe tastes are indicators of intelligence, cultural education, social belonging, physiological conformation of the auditory system, and so on. Often they say nothing, but sometimes they do (as open-minded as you might be, I’m sure you would never take musical advice from the neighbor who gets high on Gigi D'Alessio, and I apologize for mentioning certain names in the sacred universe of Debaser!).
As for the difference between "musica" and "MUSICA," well, I believe it exists, even though, I admit, I wouldn’t be able to make the distinction (except perhaps for some rather obvious names).

Maybe you’re right, give us some names so we can understand what you mean!

I still can’t assess the impact of this album, but I really like it a lot, one of my favorites in recent years! As for the talk about revivals, there’s nothing wrong with it, and I myself love many bands that haven’t really brought anything new. However, man, how I would love to live in an era of revolutions and innovations like those of the past! Yes to intelligent revivalism, but let’s always seek new paths while we bask in this. And as for the blatant clones of bands from twenty years ago, well, let’s stop considering them!

P. Scaruffi, I wrote you an email and you never replied, damn it!

Well, when friends talk about movies, music, or similar stuff, they often use expressions like that; they shouldn't be taken too seriously! It's a rhetorical device to be more expressive! Anyway, they're offensive to the group, not to those who are listening!