Zarathustra

esaycure: I don’t remember saying that hard rock is just a sped-up blues... more than anything, I would have never used a word like sped-up; anyway, if I did, it means I was drunk. Certainly, as music, it’s not the most original; it feeds off the stylistic elements of blues while barely bending its structural rigidity (perhaps this is something I actually said), but even then, if you think about it, hard rock songs all have a rather similar progression. Naturally, I don’t want to diminish this musical genre in the slightest, nor the Led Zeppelin, who for me are the greatest band of all time (second only to Pink Floyd, perhaps…). The Led are a legend. Regarding what they did, I can agree; however, plagiarism is another matter, and when it comes to blues, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to talk about it... also because it’s music deeply rooted in tradition (beyond copyright issues), so, more or less, it's like if I took an excerpt from Bach and put it in one of my songs: who would say anything? They more or less did this, except in Whole Lotta Love, which remains an interpretation and not a plagiarism (this is the most accurate term in my opinion, when talking about songs like Lemon Song, Bring It Home, etc.). Of course, apart from the differences in sound and the proverbial instrumental evolutions, the vocal part is almost identical; and mind you, Page admitted it himself... after all, Waters or Dixon sued them and probably won...
In lumping together all those bands, I absolutely did not err in superficiality because the association was made based on their attitude to showcase instrumental technique: which of those bands, in one way or another, didn’t do it? For example (though it’s certainly not the only insightful indicator), a band that reserves space in its shows exclusively for one member is showcasing that individual’s technique; I don’t fear being contradicted. And the bands I mentioned, more or less, do this. The Zep (the twenty minutes of Moby Dick and Dazed and Confused are obviously from the live version) did it too. The Purple. And the Theater as well. Only that if Hendrix does it, it’s fine; if the Theater does, it’s not. So we need to be serious if we want to be taken seriously (!!!) when making judgments: either it’s acceptable for both or for neither. For me, showcasing technique is part of the game. Of course, it’s not the most important thing at all. As for the rest, I like Dream Theater, I respect those who don’t love them, but it cracks me up when they’re criticized for being derivative because ALL MUSIC IS DERIVATIVE; in nature, nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed, just like in music. But I know, at this point, someone will chime in and say that old bands had soul and originality while the Theater just copies in a pedantic and mindless way, without soul, only thinking about money, etc. It’s all tremendously predictable. All of this, mind you, without any bitterness towards anyone.

Good review, the album is more than skippable, let’s just say it’s only for enthusiasts. The reason for the so-called failure of Falling into Infinity lies in the pressures from the record label and the momentary yielding of some band members... it’s all explained in the "Score" documentary by Portnoy himself. However, I don’t mind that album too much; there are a couple of really nice tracks, even if they are clearly not up to par with the others. I believe that the presence of a not-so-exceptional keyboardist like Sherinian, with very few classy ideas, also contributed to this.

Too long... I really don't like them, simple music, without a solo, a complex instrumental interplay, nothing at all... only the singer's wonderful voice stands out, truly great as a vocalist. I don't understand the adoration the band's fans have for the guitarist; his voice is not memorable, and his technique and guitar skills are quite questionable. So much noise— they are really one of the loudest bands I've ever heard— for nothing at all.

I fully share what has been said – with exemplary clarity – in the last paragraph. Let's say that the Stones would never have existed without the Beatles, and thus the dispute over which of the two groups has been more epochal and great is resolved.

great review, I completely agree about the album; even though it’s a reinterpretation album, it still has a freshness and originality in its approach that is truly enviable. Of course, it’s not the band’s creative peak, but it’s still very interesting.

Now are we going to find content even in Take That? I don't know, I get the tastes but let's not exaggerate now...

I remember once in an interview, when asked if they were inspired by groups like Bon Jovi, they said that their goal was to create new music, without any models. Well, even the greatest genius of contemporary painting, Salvador Dalì, a brilliant and original painter like few others, would never dream of saying such a thing: anyone who doesn’t engage with models, with classics, even just to rebel against them, has no future. Indeed.

I purchased the double DVD: surely 20 euros spent in the best possible way, I would have been more than satisfied with the master DVD, so to speak, the one with the concert. I completely agree with those who say it's a more essential concert compared to the equally sensational Live At Budokan, where you were tossed around left and right by the rivers of notes poured out by the four, while LaBrie was indeed not in the extraordinary shape he was in during that concert, but he was not disappointing as the reviewer writes: his performance here is simply perfect apart from a slight (and totally understandable, I would say!) difficulty in a specific spot of "Under A Glass Moon," which is anyway more than overshadowed by the incredible final vocalization (then come tell me he has lost his voice) and the tons of marvelous vocal virtuosity, including Another Won (truly fantastic, Myung shining, thanks also to Portnoy's effective directing), Innocence Faded, the immortal "The Spirit Carries On," where he manages to use 100% of his voice, from the warm interpretation of the first verses to the final explosion. In short, this performance definitively crowns him as one of the greatest rock singers of all time, in case anyone had any doubts about it.
As for the other members, well, there's not much to say, all impeccable as usual, their expertise and precision are now legendary. The part with the orchestra is phenomenal. The only downside: I don't really like Raise The Knife, I would have chosen something else to represent that period, like Hollow Years or Hell's Kitchen or Peruvian Skies, but it doesn't matter, perfect live show. The second DVD has a fantastic documentary, very useful for getting to know the backstage related to the band and some curiosities about the personalities of the members: in particular, one realizes that Myung is just as he appears... but still a badass musician. The live tracks, however, are a bit disappointing.

It's true, traces of prog have disappeared; I've landed on a sound more aligned with metal, although the hard-rock roots haven't been completely denied. In short, I'm not that into them anymore, but I still have respect for this band.

I have some doubts...