gbrunoro

Yes, but there’s a difference between Satriani and Van Halen: Van Halen is definitely more important from a guitar perspective, that’s indisputable. However, Van Halen has always remained within the band structure, justifiably, because that was their way of expressing themselves. Satriani took a turn, becoming a well-rounded guitarist who is appreciated even by those who don’t know how to play the guitar. From this point of view, he is much more listenable, more mainstream than Van Halen. Of course, I’m talking about the pure guitarist Van Halen because as a band, VH has sold millions more records than our Satch. Regarding Satriani's decline, I think no one has any doubts, but the same can be said of Eddie, who has long since stopped making great albums. But I believe that this is an inevitable phenomenon for 99% of artists... One last thing: to this day, witnessing a Satriani concert is an unheard-of pleasure; you see a person playing with such love and joy for the music that it’s literally delightful. Not to mention his sound, that unmistakable tone of his... but now I’m dangerously drifting off. Oh, one last thing: unfortunately, I’ve never had the luck to hear Eddie play live... but when the hell is he going to decide to come to Italy?!?!?!?!?

This album is something wonderful. I remember as if it were yesterday the first time I listened to it; I was truly blown away, feeling overwhelmed by a state of euphoria and happiness that has accompanied me every time I’ve listened to Satch's beautiful music (even in his less fortunate moments). I just got the new reissue with the bonus DVD of the Montreux live show, and I was thinking of reviewing it... And anyway, Satriani for mayor! :D (p.s. he's coming back to Italy in July... finally!)

There are scenes that literally have you rolling on the floor laughing and that alone save the movie... I still remember when I saw it in the theater... oh my god, I was laughing so hard... probably the best performance by Rick Moranis...

Well, if we want to be pedantic, let me remind you that the only 2Cd edition of this concert is a deluxe Japanese edition printed in 2001 (not 2002). The whole concert can only be found on the DVD (which, by the way, has rather low audio/video quality, unfortunately...), but I imagine you were referring to that rare and almost unattainable reissue (http://www.thehighwaystar.com/rosas/jouni/discos/live01.html)... come on, let's not exaggerate... a little inaccuracy can happen to anyone; it doesn't seem necessary to get angry about it... and anyway, this album by the masters is too conceptual to be fully enjoyable. Now I have to run; I have dinner to prepare :D

The first time I heard it, I shouted: oh my god, I am literally speechless! And anyway, the 2002 double CD version is a completely different concert, with Steve Morse on guitar, etc.. It's not just a simple reissue.

Delightful film, watched and rewatched as a child, and I still gladly revisit it if I have the chance. Can you believe I only just discovered that the film was directed by Sidney Lumet! In any case, this and Death on the Nile remain the two best films adapted from Christie’s books. Peter Ustinov, needless to say, embodied the essence of Poirot in DN...

Come on... we partially disagree, all things considered, deep down, when all is said and done, we are saying the same thing; the difference is that he has it in for poor Stevie :D

A film that is the offspring of an unforgivable original sin: it is impossible to interpret the story with today's cultural criteria; it's nonsense, a downright foolishness. What surprises me is that at the level of media, critics, and alike, no one ever seems to notice. It's an exercise in style and little else, that’s my impression. And then, every time I watch a period film, I realize that after Barry Lyndon, any historical costume film seems like nonsense.

The point is another one, excuse me for saying this: every musician evolves and plays according to THEIR technique. Period. There is no "the technique," or rather it only exists when doing exercises and scales and things like that, but not when playing. When you need to play, you develop and mature your personal technique, your style, your taste, your tone—everything that makes you a musician. And this applies to everyone who manages to live off music. Then, and this I really don't understand, those who say that people like Vai "also" know how to play blues or jazz or slow pieces are wrong, it's true, but they do it because those who criticize shred guitarists (let's call them that just for clarity) say they can only play "that way," which is nonsense, because it would be like criticizing Clapton for not arpeggiating like Malmsteen. Ultimately, it's a wrong response to an initially misguided criticism. Everyone should play what they want, how they want, and then it's up to everyone to make judgments of taste and express their own preferences, but that's where it ends. What's particularly strange is that in other artistic genres, no one would dare make useless comparisons like Van Gogh is better than Picasso, or Dante is better than Bukowski and various nonsense, yet every time we talk about guitarists, it’s immediately: "yes, that one is good, but it’s just technique; for me, feeling is more important." Sure, but that one can’t arpeggiate at 20,000 on the metronome and so on... and that’s enough...

Well, I challenge anyone to say that May isn't a great guitarist, damn it... and then watch out: sometimes an artist makes a genre that we think sucks, but that doesn't mean their music is shit... (even though I agree on Ramazzotti: he sucks!)