DanVerlaine

Almost completely agree with Boxis.

I generally agree with the reviewer, but my rating is 2.

Good job, nice record. Intriguing We Tiger and College.

I must say, however, that it's not fair to generalize. There are predominant passions in the forum, but there are many users and they don't all have the same tastes. I don't know anyone from the forum and I have no knowledge of their stories; Fabretti seems to me like someone who knows how to write and is an intelligent type. We may not share the same vision of music, but that doesn't mean I hold any malice towards him. Also, I don't view favorably this '80s drift, as I've already mentioned, but even worse is that they are now legitimizing any nonsense commercial dance music. All that’s left is for them to speak well of Katy Perry.

I apologize, but I'm late; either out of haste or forgetfulness, I never reread what I write. Eventually, I’ll learn from that. I also wanted to respond better to something you wrote. I told you that I don’t really like the alternatives at all costs, but there are mechanisms that kick in somewhat from the "sistema debaser." I mean, it happens to me too, like to others, and I think I understood that it happens to you as well, that if I notice a record has received too many 5s and 4s, and to me it deserves a 3.5, I tend to give it a 3, rounding down to rebalance a situation that I find excessively favorable and unjust.
Regarding SGT Peppers in particular (I take this opportunity to clarify some of my positions), I consider it a highly overrated album. It's undoubtedly influential, but overrated because the Beatles have done better. The pop perfection of Magical Mystery Tour is a whole other thing in my opinion; perhaps it has just one weak point. Revolver is superior to it, as is Rubber Soul, which is never emphasized enough when it was probably the most important album in their career. To me, SGT Peppers seems like an album where only Lennon was truly inspired; the others, definitely not. And then, I don’t know, it seems almost like an album by a band that desperately wanted to embrace psychedelia but did so with little courage, daring very little.
But then... Is it a psychedelic album?? It has some psychedelic pieces, yes, but I wouldn't define it as psychedelic tout court, somewhat like this album by Spirit, except that here there is a deliberate alternation of folk-blues pieces with more or less psychedelic ones. There, it seems to me that psychedelia is almost a whim in some tracks, a garnish that instead of characterizing it, perhaps even weighs it down. That's why I consider Revolver better; I find it more "honest" in its dryness. One song I’ve never understood how it can be considered a masterpiece is Within You Without You—ugh, it’s incredibly boring. The Things really used the psychedelic sitar well.
Who says the Stones evolved more than the Beatles? Maybe they started out more "ahead," let's say, and they also got to some things before the Beatles, but the overall evolution has been lesser, without a doubt. The Beatles in '69 seemed like a different group from the one in '62.

About the Stones:
...I'm not a huge fan of theirs either, but it must be acknowledged that they established the grammar of rock-blues as we still think of it today, and it's fine if they’re not liked. Moreover, just look at how many people comment on the Beatles compared to the Stones; there’s a clear quantitative disparity, and I find it hard to understand how the Stones can't have as many supporters as the Beatles (I haven’t commented on them either, precisely because I didn't want to come off as anti-Beatles stonesian, but I will soon once I get some of their original records). The Stones, regardless of personal taste, have, in my view, played a certainly greater role in the history of rock than the Beatles, but here we come to the crucial point of the matter (which makes us all a bit ridiculous when we argue over differing opinions): what is rock? What is art? Heaven help us.
I hope you agree with me that many of the bitter dialectics that arose due to differing views on music fundamentally stem from the different meanings assigned to the words. We should first confront each other's conception of music, rock, pop, etc., but that’s a bit complicated.
Cheers and sorry for the mistakes; I hope it makes sense.

I've lost a piece:
"I believe that more than as innovators, total geniuses of music, etc. etc., THEY SHOULD BE REMEMBERED AS GREAT MELODISTES."

I know you just meant to warn me about the risk of being a bit inconsistent, but on the other hand, I was ironically pointing out how in one way or another we've ended up indirectly promoting the Beatles :).
Well, you're undoubtedly right; there are those who are inconsistent, and those who try to play the alternative card at all costs by attacking sacred monsters just to give themselves some weight. If I seemed to be part of that category, I apologize.
As for the Beatles' melodies, I believe they've written some very good ones, and I consider them as total geniuses of music rather than mere innovators, etc. What I sometimes don't appreciate is their vaudeville, "foolish" style by definition, originating from farce theater, practically from cabaret. Moreover, with the Beatles, it strikes me as even more annoying because it isn’t even supported by decent lyrics, and the childish voice of McCartney completes the picture of some of the Beatles' humorous pieces in a way that makes them sound almost ridiculous.
I have nothing against the Beatles; if anything, I have something against ignorance and arrogance. It bothers me that people who know the Beatles and maybe four other bands attribute every kind of merit to them when history tells a different story. Because tastes are undeniable, but the chronology of facts is a bit less so.
So, I think I have a musical culture that's perhaps a bit above average, but still mediocre, and many times I hold back from forming opinions on what I don't know well, which makes me wonder with what arrogance certain people can be so certain that the Beatles were so immense. Moreover, it irritates me the inability to use one’s own head and judge according to personal tastes, those who just follow the herd. How can one accept that something is beautiful or good out of principle?? In the end, it might be that I also follow the herd, but only after doing my own personal evaluations.
You know, Psycho, what’s an element that makes me not love the Beatles so much? The drumming; in my opinion, Ringo's drumming ruins many tracks and is also one of the reasons why out of all the dated bands, the Beatles sound decidedly among the most dated. I'm not a fan of technicality at all; indeed, I believe that sometimes "genius" lies in the simplicity of an intuition, but objectively, I think a bit of skill helps in writing better music, without needing to be phenomenal, mind you. But Ringo was really zero. I mean, I also claim the pleasure of listening to a band that plays well. For example, I really like S.F.Sorrow among other things, also because the drummer is really good, and it’s not that I’m thrilled just because he’s good (there have been and are many much better ones on a technical level), it’s that his drumming shapes the sound of that work in a way that I really appreciate.
If that record had been played by Ringo Starr, it would certainly be worth less to me. Generally, I don’t like the sonic and vocal chemistry of the Beatles very much, unlike that of Spirit, so I don't know what to do about it. I believe the Beatles wrote pop masterpieces and excellent records; I have no animosity towards them.
As for the influence of the Beatles (by now we've forgotten about the Spirit record, ahahah), it's undeniable that they were extremely influential, and unlike Scaruffo (who proves to be a bit obtuse), I don't think taking inspiration from the Beatles is negative in itself. I don't know if you noticed that Scaruffo tends to dismiss anyone who is inspired by the Beatles while placing on a pedestal those who perhaps are inspired by Pere Ubu or Beefheart. For me, this is a ridiculous stance; in my opinion, there are people who, inspired by the Beatles, have written great things and others who, inspired by the Ubu, have come up with utter rubbish.
As for the Rolling Stones, I don't particularly love them either, but we must admit they established the grammar of the blues-rock band; it's not like they invented anything groun

In my opinion, they tend to legitimize a bit too much dance music. They probably think they are showing themselves to be more open to music at 360 degrees, but the truth is that you go to the forum and everyone is there talking about New Wave and dance music. I also like some New Wave, but they are way too obsessed with the '80s.

Thank you, Psycho. It was the first real review I wrote. When I started it, I intended to publish it here, but then coincidentally it ended up that after mentioning that the album, in my opinion, deserved to be included in the list of "milestones," they asked me to review it, and I did. It’s certainly an episode that will remain unique; if I write other reviews, I will definitely publish them here. By the way, I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to promote Ondarock; I simply wanted to pay homage to this masterpiece by also sharing here the things I had created. However, I didn’t know how to do it—whether to duplicate it exactly or post the review in the comments—and in the end, I directly linked to the review published on Onda.