Larrok

I also agree on "A Sun that Never Set," just to show you that I'm not biased against metal; I’ve just sifted through many parts of this immense genre, within which there are still several artistic oases, although 70-80% of it is full of useless bands like Dragonforce and various clones, but even in thrash, death, and prog, now largely permeated by continuous plagiarism.

"In the 10 minutes of Divus Pennae Ex Tragoedia, I find sensations that the 22 minutes of Storm fail to convey to me...": look, I think I understand what you mean, because I thought like you did until 2-3 years ago; but what you believe to be deep sensations, in listening to Symphony X, are nothing more than the thrills of exhilaration of the metalhead within you when he hears the "huge crushing riff" or the "earth-shattering double bass," along with the odd time signatures and the incredibly complicated solos that lead you to convince yourself that you’re listening to music "of a certain level," when, in fact, the requirements one should expect from an album are very different... And let’s not turn it into "the emotions an album gives me," because then even a fan of Laura Pausini could claim the same thing. It's necessary to distinguish between art and entertainment. This SX CD is absolutely pleasant and entertains a lover of the genre. But enthusiasts of entertainment music cannot, solely due to their passion, assert that entertainment is on par with art; otherwise, even Enrico Papi or Gigi D'Alessio would become artists. Is it just me who feels the need to distinguish between the two fields, or do you feel it too?

I have all three albums by The Tangent and I must say they do not go beyond a good revivalistic recovery of '70s prog, through the reuse of already heavily used stylistic elements. The result is a pleasant listening experience, which feels more like a craft work than a work of art.

"Millions Now Living Will Never Die" is, for me, comfortably comparable in artistic quality to "Island," despite being very different works... I don't see how one can claim that one is superior to the other, given that we are talking about two albums of great value, but from different periods and distinct musical realms. Who decided that someone who doesn’t appreciate King Crimson is immature, while someone who despises Tortoise is not? Both are artists who have marked the history of rock, even if on separate paths, and deserve the same respect. As for personal tastes, I'll tell you that my metal soul prefers Opeth, but my post-rock soul favors Tortoise, and I would never dream of declaring such a clear 7-0 in objective terms, especially considering that the highly valid Opeth have not recorded as much as Tortoise (or Bark Psychosis or Slint...) in the evolution of rock.

It’s about the supreme art of PSYCHEDELIA; I don’t expect you to appreciate it, but you can’t just label it as mental gymnastics… (and anyway, I don’t like Sigur Ros, too catchy-perfect)

The comparison you made between "Lift..." and "Solinari" is obscene and immediately shows that you don’t understand much about Godspeed... and I think about post-rock in general, given that, for you, Tortoise are just a pain in the ass. Your tastes are not open to debate, but ignoring the importance of certain bands is quite rude.

and the lack of originality is also the main criticism I have of Symphony X

But in fact I was the one talking about it because for me expressive originality is a fundamental requirement in judging music... I hope you agree with me that AF do not shine in terms of originality.

here we are not talking about innovation, but about originality, and in my opinion, After Forever have very little that's original; if you want, they can be less showy than SX, but in terms of artistic quality, we are about at the same level... if you want to hear a band that does metal and is original, listen to Kayo Dot. Once you've listened to one of their albums, you'll understand what originality means.

And who has criticized the tastes? I criticized the band, which is quite different.