DanVerlaine

In light of how I've written, it's clear I haven't gotten over it yet..hahaha

PSYCHO
I realized I might come off as aggressive towards you, I'm sorry, that was not my intention at all. It's just that upon rereading, I found it a bit annoying that even here we ended up with the Beatles who don’t need any more publicity, unlike the Spirits.
It just seemed to me that some of your comments could be misleading for a casual internet user.
What I contest is, but I could very well be wrong, a musical culture that I would dare to call "Beatle-centric."
Anyway, sorry again if I seemed aggressive, I was also half drunk ahahah when I wrote this stuff..

I wouldn't define an album like this as "on the verge of cheap pop." If making folk and blues with arrangements, in certain tracks, rather "joyful" means being almost cheap, then I don't know, Van Morrison in Moondance can be crowned as the king of cheap popsters. The point is that this isn't even an album that hosts “pop-psychedelia,” it's simply an album where many songs have nothing to do with psychedelia, not due to lack of achievement but because they are something else. Tracks like Prelude-Nothing To Hide, Street Worm, Mr. Skin have absolutely nothing to do with psychedelic rock. Here, folk and blues reign supreme, contaminated by a subtle pop-floral vein. In Space Child, they really attempt to write something close to a true psychedelic piece, albeit filtered through their style, and the result isn't particularly poppy, but simply a beautiful hybrid that's hard to identify. For the rest, I don't understand on what principle this album shouldn't appeal to me considering that I don't like some of the Beatles. I would avoid representing this work as containing 12 Yellow Submarine because that's not the case at all. For me, it's a work of enormous class, well-arranged and executed, and the guitar in California, with its embellishments and solos, makes everything even more enchanting. This album has nothing to do with the Beatles, but I don't say this out of disdain for the Beatles (I love S.F.Sorrow by the Pretty Things and the influence is obvious); it just seems to me that, apart from a couple of songs, the influence of the Beatles is virtually absent. The Beatles would have made these things much more elaborate. This fetishistic reiteration of the merits of the Beatles even when they have nothing to do with it is truly disheartening. What are we talking about: Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day In The Life, Revolution 9? Are those songs more "elaborate" than those of Twelve Dreams Of Sardonicus? To me, they seem like excellent experimental songs by the Beatles, not necessarily more elaborate. I’ve never said a song has to be complex or elaborate to be good, and I reiterate that one can be sunny, jovial, and fun without being banal. I judge the music of the Beatles as a whole; it doesn’t mean that, for example, a great idea always leads to a good overall song. I prefer Here Comes The Sun to Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds simply because the former is a well-constructed, mature, elegant song that masterfully evokes dawning lights and West Coast atmospheres; in short, an excellent composition, with a highly relevant use of the "tu du du du." Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is a decent piece that starts well but is ruined by a classic chorus that sounds silly and out of context to me. What kind of comparison is that between some Beatles songs taken here and there and the songs from a single work by the Spirit? It doesn't seem relevant. Then let’s randomly pull from Spirit's repertoire to make it fair. However, I’m a fool; I've indirectly managed to advertise the Beatles.

ANTONIODIESTE
It is indeed true that in this album the jazz influence remains only as a nuance; it was more pronounced in some of the earlier productions, particularly the first one. In the note Fresh Garbage, you can hear a pianist's momentum that is clearly jazz-influenced. As for Twelve Dreams, I didn't say that there is jazz to be found there; it is obvious that Coltrane is not heard anywhere. I spoke of "timbre" that peeks out here and there, a jazz timbre that also blends with the grammar of the blues. However, in particular, you can find jazz reminiscences in a piece like Space Child, where after 54 seconds a typically jazz phrasing begins.

Great album. Real rating: 4.5

More than good album. It takes a few more listens to really appreciate it. If you love the more psychedelic and guitar-driven Mercury Rev, you might find it rather hard to digest. If you enjoy both psychedelia and certain '80s sounds, this is the album for you. Dark, but not sad. Actual rating: 3.5

Real rating: 4.5.
Great album, The Afterhours are worth much more than a lot of celebrated foreign bands, but of course the overwhelming foreign enthusiasm prevents many from realizing it.

What a great album! I wrote a review that I wasn't sure whether to duplicate here as I had started writing it to post it here. The album has been included among the "milestones" of OndaRock, reviewed by me.

Compared to renowned bands that also try to blend more danceable new wave with rock 'n' roll, like the Killers, they are several degrees above. There is more talent in this album than in all those released so far by the Killers.

One of the most interesting novelties of 2008. At first glance, I was put off by them, but upon listening again, I began to decipher their intentions. Eccentric, eclectic, amused, and amusing. A bit too dance-oriented for my tastes, but one must appreciate their ability to masterfully and originally mix all their influences: synth pop, power pop, rock n roll, dance music/rave pop.