Larrok

I haven't smoked anything, it’s you who’s navigating in ignorance. Do you want to know what progressive is? Listen to King Crimson or Soft Machine. The SX, I repeat, mix Power and Thrash: the thrash is evident in the big riffs of Romeo who constantly borrows from Darrell, and the Power is in the exalted atmospheres of pseudo-symphonism and in the tired tricks of neoclassical solos. There’s very little progressive in there.

@Sirbony: Tool making music for little faggots?? Pseudo-dark goths? Sorry, but if an artist doesn't use dirt distortion, double pedals, and doesn’t do neoclassical solos like Malmsteen, you don't consider them? Let me give you a little history of rock: Tool are among the most important artists of the '90s; albums like Aenima or Lateralus have changed the course of history and are infinitely superior to certain crap you hear in the metal scene, because they possess a fundamental quality that all those power show-offs lack: originality and expressiveness.

stipe, what progressive? Using offbeats and orchestral samples is not enough to create progressive; if anything, they make an energetic Thrash-Power.

Well, I’ve seen them live too, quite cute... if you have to evaluate them in the context of their genre (Interpol, Maximo Park, etc...) they are also appreciable, but having to give an objective judgment that takes into account the overall history of rock, they don’t reach a passing grade. For me, a 2.5, but I feel generous.

Immense? Masterpiece? Those don’t seem like fitting adjectives for this album. Can I offer some criticism? 1. I don’t think you know what classical music is if you believe Tchaikovsky or Vivaldi have anything to do with this album; don’t confuse the pseudo-classical trinkets with CLASSICAL MUSIC. 2. Is Russell Allen the best rock singer around? Perhaps he’s the best in the power-prog-metal realm, but certainly not for expressiveness—rather for technique and so on, which count until noon. 3. There’s not even a trace of jazz-fusion here (I fear you’re referring to the odd time signatures, which in themselves mean jack). 4. Jason Rullo is a great instrumentalist, not a great musician. 5. Symphony X do not and will never have the class of Tool, not to mention that Tool are a fundamental band for the evolution of rock, while the same cannot be said for Symphony X. 6. It doesn’t take much to sweep away Blind Guardian and Manowar. 7. It takes some guts to define Kansas as a great progressive-rock band...King Crimson, Soft Machine were great progressive bands. Given these considerations, I think the album doesn’t stray far from what Romeo and company have already done, lazily repeating an overly abused style.

AND WHO CARES, aren't you going to include it?

And what the hell! Who cares if they are technically flawless? They are the perfect example of the complete absence of artistic quality in metal. Listen to "Lorca" by Tim Buckley and you'll understand the incredible abyss that exists between these two types of music.

And then excuse me, but it's absolutely not arrogance; I have my own system of values and I judge according to that system what is artistically valid and what isn't. And I can argue, if you want. You may not agree, but if you want me to consider your thesis, you have to show me that I'm wrong.

@Julian: even Gigi D'Alessio's music is made to please the ears, what does that mean? It’s a standard that doesn’t hold up, you can tell on your own... If you give in to subjectivism, one could also say that Britney Spears is better than Pink Floyd for them, and no one could argue about their personal tastes. However, when it comes to the objective realm, that is to discuss qualities like originality and expressiveness, then you can’t tell me that Arctic Monkeys, Interpol, or The Strokes are artists to be considered on par with the true rock artists.

Damn, those four you mentioned are the major labels (record companies) with the biggest business volume; another thing are the so-called "independent" record labels, many of which don't care about promoting musical quality in production, but rather focus on their market share, which is still quite large, aiming for the highest possible sales, even through advertising deals with radio and television, just like the majors do. Then there are the TRUE independent labels, which finance the works of artists who are often unknown, but have truly valid proposals and don’t care at all, or only to a small extent, about sales. Just look at Fugazi, Slint, etc... That's the difference between real independent labels and fake ones.