embryo

Well, in my humble opinion, the Iron are much more overrated than Metallica, if you really want to make the comparison. I think Iron are terrible because, apart from being disgustingly kitschy, they have never shown any signs of evolution; they've been annoying people with the same stuff for thirty years! It might just be my limitation... who cares... The Black Album is a good album with great songs, obviously inferior to the previous ones, but it's still the last Metallica album that has a reason to exist.

Exceptional record, with all due respect to Scaruffi (since he has been mentioned here, I’ll allow myself to quote him as well). I absolutely agree with paloz: the Pink Floyd didn’t miss a beat until the 80s. At least in my opinion. Each album has its own story, its own reason for being, and this is one of my favorites.

Rikardo, your comment speaks volumes: you are a useless and pathetic ignorant. You don’t deserve me to waste another word on you because it would be time wasted. Alexander77, to be honest, I don’t understand the nonsense (sorry but to me it is) that you wrote; I mean that their music seems almost manufactured to sell and ride the wave of grunge success, it doesn’t say anything new at all. I don’t judge people and honestly, I couldn’t care less. 2) Vedder and Weiland don’t have similar voices; Weiland strives to make it sound alike. An example? Plush, the part "And I feel it" is blatantly taken from Even Flow. And then go listen to Pretty Penny and come back to tell me they have similar voices. Also, I find it ridiculous to say that Pearl Jam are a copy of Young: of course, they were inspired, but do you really think songs like Blood, Rats, Spin The Black Circle, Hail Hail, and many others have anything to do with Neil Young? Go ahead and say yes, and then I'll have a good laugh.

alexander77: differences between Pearl Jam and Neil Young? First of all, the voice; Vedder has never imitated Young, while Weiland almost always tries to mimic someone. Pretty Penny shows that the voice Weiland often uses is not his. In my opinion, it’s clear that he tries to imitate Vedder, and in Core it was obvious that he wanted to mimic Staley. 2) Pearl Jam have been inspired by Young; maybe at times they’ve slightly borrowed, but they still have their own personality; you can feel it’s them, and they have other influences as well (hard, a bit of punk, American rock). On the other hand, STP say nothing to me in terms of authenticity; I don’t dislike them and I don’t hate them, but listening to them means being hit with déjà-vu for me. Not just me: I’ve played them for more than a few people who didn’t know them without telling them who they were right away to see their reaction, and it was always: “Who are these? Pearl Jam? Oh no, they’re AIC... Look, Soundgarden.” Collective hallucination?? Well, just to quote famous words, if you can’t hear, it’s your problem. For me, they’re just pleasant, nice, but nothing essential. They were and will always be clever (and somewhat dishonest) derivatives. Just think that they formed around '87 and only became successful in 1992, right in the midst of the grunge era. Coincidence?

I disagree on several points: a) First of all, grunge did exist. Of course, grunge bands were different from one another, so what?!?! There are still some rather modest bands trying to revive Seattle by reiterating its stereotypes, and this is proof that, even though it's been a while since it peaked, grunge did exist. b) The album is not great, the worst in their discography, but there are still some decent tracks (I Am Mine, Love Boat Captain) and the beautiful Young-inspired ballad Thumbing My Way that redeem the work from a total failure. 3) If you think rock 'n' roll was in such bad shape in 2002, listen to Songs For The Deaf by Queens Of The Stone Age: you probably know it, but before generalizing about a supposed critical situation for rock in 2002, know that that year the QOTSA, thanks to this indisputable masterpiece, proved more than Pearl Jam that rock could still be done in an original and personal way. 4) "...Pearl Jam showed multiple times a lack of personality, tracks devoid of bite, embarrassing episodes if not outright ridiculous, as in this album": you may be right that this album has some embarrassing moments (personally, I think You Are is horrible), but this is also the seventh album of their career, and a drop in quality is allowed! If you have doubts about the personality and value of Pearl Jam, (re)listen to Vitalogy, a Masterpiece with a capital M.

In my opinion, they operate on the coordinates I've described, that is, death that is both very technical and very intense, often just a step away from grindcore. But in Alaska and Colors, they do it with more maturity and awareness of their means; moreover, there are wonderful melodic inserts in them that counterbalance the brutality characteristic of the genre.

Sorry everyone, there’s a pleonasm that might mislead you in my sentence. I wanted to say: "If you think that the Black Sabbath of the Ozzy era are not the real ones, you are completely free to think so, just as I am completely free to think that you need urgent mental care." I included two "not."

One of the most horrific reviews in history. You did fairly well with the one for Technical Ecstasy, although I didn’t fully agree with the content; with this one, however, you completely missed the mark. If you believe that the Black Sabbath of the Ozzy era aren’t the real ones, you’re totally free to think that, just as I am free to think you need urgent mental hospitalization. Whether you like it or not, these are the true Black Sabbath, the ones with the Iommi-Ward-Butler-Osbourne lineup. You can’t downplay their immeasurable importance just because you can’t stand Ozzy Osbourne and claim, for example, that the Black Sabbath of Headless Cross and Dehumanizer are the REAL Sabbath! In my opinion, after a few years they should have changed their name.
A remarkable album, slightly below the average of the first five and indicative of the impending internal crisis, but anyway it remains the last memorable relic of the REAL Black Sabbath!

If I had to rate the career and the U2, I would give them a 1. For the past 20 years, they have been one of the most irritating bands because of their grandeur and their falseness; in slightly less time, they've produced crap that has tarnished even their past work. In short, they are shameful sellouts. However, thinking about their work, War remains a good album with some great tracks. Bono has always been a petty demagogue, and U2 have always been one of the most rhetorical bands on the planet; still, if I focus solely on the music, I can't deny that I quite like several songs from the early U2. Everyone has their faults :-)

I didn't really like it much. At certain points, there’s a noticeable creative void, typical of a band past its prime, worn out by drugs and self-important, conflicting personal ambitions. Sure, it’s still a record from the historic Black Sabbath, but it ranks among the lesser works from their early period. It's Alright is comical, Rock'n'roll Doctor is a trivial rock tune worthy of the least inspired Kiss (and at that time they were in their ascent, so their influence can't be ruled out), She's Gone is yet another not-so-engaging diversion into orchestrated prog balladry. Nothing bad or unbearable, but no masterpiece worthy of their early years, perhaps with the exception of Dirty Women.