cptgaio

I wrote very poorly, sorry, if you need clarifications I'm available.

I don't quite agree with your analysis (I'm speaking to Riccardo), but it's not a problem. You see Queen only as a musical phenomenon, but in reality, they went far beyond that. It's possible that they borrowed many things from others (which happens with everyone since music began), but they defined them in a precise style that is quite inimitable, especially given Mercury's unique vocal and stage interpretation skills. In my opinion, but it's just my opinion, you rely too much on the opinions of music critics and don't consider that music often goes well beyond mere technical or, worse, statistical issues. Honestly, all the critics you mention are certainly not just simple parvenus, but I repeat, they often give very subjective judgments disguised as self-imposed objectivity in the name of a really pretentious alternativeism (can you say that?). Honestly, in my small way, I prefer the easy melodies of Queen and their (once) stage presence (perhaps the greatest live band of all time) over the self-indulgent noise of Captain Beefheart (an artist favored by Scaruffi) or the convoluted Zappa-esque evolutions (if I'm not mistaken, highly regarded by Bangs). I could be wrong, but I feel like I'm wrong for thinking with my own head rather than relying on the words of pseudo-alternative critics who often just throw shade to elevate themselves. Music is not a measurable issue, guys, keep that in mind. Obviously, without any polemic.

ARROWS! sorry arrows...

"Ghosts of Mars" is not that bad; in its own campy way, it's even entertaining. Of course, Carpenter has much better arrows in his quiver.

Immortal record, non-review not subject to evaluation.

I’ll intrude (without polemics) in your discussion, when dear Riccardo says that the legacy of Queen has not been taken up by anyone, he makes a very true statement. However, the point I disagree with is the reasoning behind it, which is that, in my opinion, the fact that Queen did not engage in proselytism is due to the difficulty of imitating them without the risk of falling into plagiarism, the bizarre, or the grotesque because, in a certain sense (like it or not), they created a style that is fairly unique and unimitable. It's also obvious that their way of presenting themselves has caused this dichotomy between those who love them to madness (I appreciated them a lot when I was younger, now a bit less, but I recognize their greatness) and those who hate them (often with well-founded reasons). As for the critics mentioned, honestly their opinions are as valid as those of anyone else, so they deserve respect, but just because some Scaruffi of the day (too often with fake alternative reasons) tears apart an album (or praises it), I don’t take it as gospel. We always start from very subjective discussions, and whether we like it or not, even the best (and most detached) critic is never completely objective. Bye!

Immense record from every point of view.

Certo! Inviami il testo che desideri tradurre e provvederò a farlo.

I'll give you one point less because it was already there. This record, which I obviously like a lot.

Oh my God, dysgraphia: so the sentence was "I am originally from Castelgomberto"... Phew... it was tough but I did it!
I also have a proverb that goes around my workplace: "Be wary of the wind, of those who are in the convent, of the drip that goes down slowly"... Do you need the translation?