Lord

Well, who doesn't masturbate?

I don't know what it means, and I'm not joking.

Riccardo, on behalf of the dreamer, stop; you're confusing image with music. Beatles = music, Britney = image. That's all there is to it. If the whole world, including those who made rock great, acknowledges the enormous influence of the Beatles, then it really means that the Beatles were indeed great musicians. And what's the deal with Mozart? He enjoys a fame equal to that of Michael Jackson, if not more, and I've always heard wonderful things about him. If you want advice, though, focus more on Vivaldi or Bach (the latter in particular), who are more meditative and less blatantly self-celebratory. While Mozart is excellent.

Eh Riccardo, looking at the ratings for this album, the 5s are countless; it’s the people in these cases who judge, since on Earth there is no being more evolved than man, and if the people say that the album in question is an absolute masterpiece, then it truly is. You might not like it, but the album holds monumental importance in the music of the late 20th century and even the third millennium. Or maybe we are all goats?

"They made the kids laugh, and the parents enjoyed an hour and a half of blissful peace. Isn’t that worth a 5 just for the domestic function of these films? And I’m not kidding. In the end, as I already said, you always watch them with pleasure, and then you go to bed happy and content. Oh, Poletti, you can't masturbate every day to 'Battleship Potemkin'; when I watch masterpieces like ‘2001: A Space Odyssey,’ it takes me days to digest it. If I had to watch films of such intensity every day, my brain would turn to mush, which is already down at my nostrils after the first sneeze."

Fruit Ricky? There's really nothing more to say? How about gardening, horse racing, crossword puzzles, chess,...

Springsteen embodies that form of songwriting, but for as little as I know him, I like him. waits, is a different case...

(!) It’s true, but on the other hand, only fools fail to recognize the greatness of the Beatles in terms of composition. In Benefit, there’s the song "Son," which is a tribute by Ian Anderson to the typical quirky song of Paul McCartney. The greats of rock have taken the Beatles lesson to heart; all the greats, from the first to the last, have said in interviews that the Beatles were a decisive influence, while the idiots (one of whom has just written a post directed at me quoting phrases from one of my previous posts) keep downplaying them, saying nonsense, reducing them to gossip, image, paper. They will have to change their minds...

Ricky, are you climbing on the ant's penis again?

Nothing exceptional, it means typical soft rock, pop-rock of the singer-songwriters from the '80s. In short, if you listen to Gabriel's songs from that period, they are tracks that flow instrumentally, with a meticulous arrangement (which can get boring over time, as the music is either too soft or commercial); for example, "Shock the Monkey," what does it have that sets it apart from a song by Genesis from the same period? Nothing, synthetic pop (the American model refers to the verse-chorus verse-chorus, chorus chorus..., nothing audacious, as has always been the case with American rock, leaving aside the psychedelic scene of the late '60s). Alright, he made some great songs, Biko, Don't Give Up, The Rhythm of the Heat, but overall I consider him a good proposal, but nothing striking. With this, I don't want to make him seem mediocre, on the contrary... especially with Genesis... It's logical that Genesis made albums superior to those of the individual members, simply because when so many 'geniuses' come together in a single entity, it can only lead to an excellent result. And taken individually, the genius can produce good music, but not like that of their group. After all, unity is strength.