Enciclopedia Poletti

Do I have an IQ of 151? No, you didn't want to brag, did you? And what the hell does that have to do with anything?

I find Frank Zappa in the studio to be decidedly less scattered than live Zappa, who was nonetheless capable of creating remarkable concerts, but the power of "Hot Rats," for example, is hard to find in "Zappa in New York." I don't know this one, though; I'll see if I can download it from somewhere.

The worst of Police. With a few gems here and there, but Sting is really lackluster here; not much of a problem given the subsequent masterpiece.

And for what enlightened reason, Mr. Jim Morrison, do you not like Enzo Jannacci? As for Cochi e Renato, I more or less agree with you, esteemed sir; they are boring and not nearly as funny as people say. The Teocoli-Boldi duo from the days of the Derby (thirty years ago) is much better.

Disappointing review, perhaps dictated by a certain emotional involvement, but I love U2 (or rather, I loved them in the Eighties and "Achtung Baby"); today’s U2, well, they’ve aged rather poorly (but what should we say about those old men, the Rolling Stones?). DaveJonGilmour, when you say boring and pathetic, are you talking about U2 or are you using the plural and making quite a self-portrait? Even some of the stuff you listen to is pathetic and boring, but if you say so, there’s no problem.

These Iron Maiden are a brand new little band, or am I wrong?

The early Iron Maiden knew how to do it; great lyrics and undeniably quality music. Then, I don't know, with the third album, the one with the number of the beast, I stopped. I heard a little here and there, but they frankly seemed burnt out. Anyway, this one is really good.

Let’s start from the beginning, namely the review. "The greatest concert in history," one could argue for at least a lifetime about this somewhat hyperbolic claim. No one takes away the charm of the songs present, but bands like Deep Purple or The Who certainly delivered better live performances. "Live At Leeds" by The Who practically invented hard rock, while "Made in Japan" by Deep Purple pushed it to the extreme. Here there are famous songs, atmospheres of a certain caliber, but nothing particularly innovative, deep down. "The greatest musical group ever to exist on Earth," oh la la, even! No one doubts they were masters in the art of music, but someone should explain to these Floydian enthusiasts that the Pink Floyd didn’t invent anything; there’s nothing new in their works, just the immense skill (of course) to reshape certain already experimented musical genres, like the psychedelia of the early "The Piper At The Gates...". The Beatles were innovative (they practically exported pop to the masses for the first time), Led Zeppelin were at times more genius than Pink Floyd, "Foxtrot" by Genesis is worth as much as "The Wall". And what about the Soft Machine, the 13th Floor Elevators, or the musical showmanship of the early Jethro Tull? Are they all really less talented than Pink Floyd? (who lasted until 1979, because from "The Final Cut" onwards they became boring and unlistenable). And, despite knowing you don’t like them, I consider the Ramones superior, in some respects, to Pink Floyd.

The most beautiful album by Deep Purple: perfect, refined, rock just the right amount, moving, emotional. A must-listen and (re)listen.

No one has commented on this review of the great Lucio Battisti yet, well, let me do it. An accurate review, an album I'm not familiar with, but if these are the tracks, a 5 is warranted. By the way: "Le tre verità" is known by few, yet it deserves to be reassessed as soon as possible.