koopa

they make shitty music because, simply, banally, patently, they are just technique. that said, I can understand that a 14-year-old drummer might get hard listening to how many time changes Portnoy can pull off in 15 seconds, but that’s where it ends. there’s a transcendence. it’s just necessary to understand that Dream Theater have simply taken the worst of prog (the sterile technicality), the worst of metal (the pompousness and the "epic" tone), shaken it all together, and produced that sterile and insignificant crap they play (well).

i dream theater... I even had some Dream Theater records at home (including this one). Bought records, I mean. Stuff that's unacceptable, unthinkable, out of the question. Some might say, "It's a matter of taste." That's not true.

MODEST MOUSE are a really nice little band... let's say "indie" in a broad sense: you can hear Talking Heads, some XTC, and even a bit of Pixies (there's "bury me with it" from the latest album that reminds me of nothing less than Debaser)... for the rest, don't take me too seriously, I like to mess with anyone. With always unchanged esteem, whatever that may be.

people... how little class in your brawls... what an unforgivable lack of style. and what nonsense you write! insults to logic: come on, for example, your 20 years don't give you the right to write pathetic things like: "if you want to cite a bass line you can't mention lenny kravitz because he's not as good as claypool." what does that mean? and if this francis finds the bass in thrills reminds him of the "uglier" one by kravitz and not the "prettier" one by primus or pink floyd, what should he do? a simple example, a hypothetical dialogue with come on: KOOPA-"in 'the devil's workday', brock's voice from modest mouse reminds me of tom waits" COME ON-"great fucking example! tom waits' voice! nonsense! it's a nice voice, sure, but can you compare it to bocelli, jeff buckley, and celine dion? quote waits, good job you ignorant fuckhead!" KOOPA-"... awkward silence". with unchanged esteem.

Just a couple of considerations, respectfully speaking, from one Battiatiano to another: the "conversion to canzonetta" didn't last long, actually... I would say from '79 ("the era of the white boar") to "fisiognomica" ('88), where our man was already delving into orchestral arrangements (there had just been "genesi," his first opera). "la cura," but that's a matter of taste, I find it quite an ugly song after all, a faded copy of "e ti vengo a cercare." Finally, Johannes is not Brahms but a character from the Buddenbrooks by Thomas Mann (the "borbottii in tedesco" are quotes from the book in the original language)... "la manina che sbuca pallida dal suo vestito alla marinara"... the outfit is likely "alla marinara" because the Buddenbrook family is from Lübeck, a city by the sea... regards.

Well. That sentence, Frantz, as it is seems a bit of nonsense to me. It’s just a matter of “phases” of reading, not “exclusive” choices: first you enjoy the emotion the painting gives you, then if you want, you get closer and study its technical execution. One doesn’t exclude the other; it seems obvious to me. As for genius artists and/or the unruly, you can’t lump them all together: there are indeed unruly geniuses, like Mozart: scholars say that his "original" scores impress because they lack corrections and erasures, indicating a composition that is spontaneous, brilliant, unrestrained in its perfection. Then there are the highly disciplined geniuses, like Beethoven, who constantly corrected, erased, and retouched, with a nerve-wracking, lengthy, and exhausting effort. Of course, there are, in between, the middle paths, but the gist is that the artistic world is beautiful because it is varied...

unambiguous? um... "unambiguous."

Yes, but it is quite evident that the work "escapes," at least in part, the intentions of the author: it is difficult to find unequivocal meanings and unidirectional messages. "The initial work" still needs to be analyzed. This often involves dissection, deconstruction, reconstruction, and interpretation, and yes, the aware critic/analyst/viewer, during this process, "puts in their own perspective." I find this normal, physiological, and, I add, beautiful. Of course, one must decide which side to take: simply enjoying the pleasure of consumption or questioning why the consumption evokes that pleasure? (Mmm... I must have borrowed this from the echo of lector in fabula...). If the passion is great, in my opinion, the step from one "condition" to another is made in the blink of an eye. On the other hand, even children take apart their toys to see how they are made inside and how they work...

Look, it was '86 and I can say "I was there" (middle school but I was there), when this record came out it was anything but "overlooked" and cast in "shadow"... all the magazines talked about it as a masterpiece. In fact, to put it better: FUCK YOU GO GET FUCKED SHIT WHEN IT CAME OUT NO WAY DID THE MAGAZINES IGNORE IT THEY SAID IT WAS KICKING ASS METAL RULEZ SHIT SHIT FUCK (PUSSY?). Kisses.

I study... let's say I was studying / I have studied... I have a thesis sitting there for years and I've lost the desire to study (but maybe in November I'll do it)... ah, the tough life of us workers/students, now very little students! :-(
Anyway, I agree, psycho: the deconstructionist-poststructuralist -postmodernist-masturbationist approach has an undeniable charm that it's wise not to get too caught up in. The risk of a "mental loop" is very strong, and one runs the risk of neuronal paralysis...