Lord

Not a masterpiece, but not the crap you describe either.

"What does it mean 'although there are electronic percussion'? In an electronic music album, what do you expect, an orchestra of bass drums?" You're right, next time I'll count to 10 before I write.

The review exceeds. The album does not; although there are electronic percussion elements, it is truly a masterpiece.

What a film, my friends, this one!

Come on, now the '68 is over: it was almost immediately ridden like a trend and indeed groups that did not take sides (Le Orme, PFM, God bless them), were often overlooked or accused of fascism. In short, everything was eventually reduced to a vulgar tendency; rebellious long hair became a fashion, pacifist ideals were just a trend (a bit like low-rise pants are now). Just think that at Woodstock you were supposed to pay for a ticket (therefore speculating on these intellectual-peaceful movements). But let's drop it, Riccardo, give me some names of yours, I don't know, Erwert, Rojbsdfns, Toergjdfga, but also the Wejionsdf,... I'm curious to know your musical tastes.

AMEN. "...cheap choirs in the background, easy sitar strumming, nonexistent instrumental technique..." here’s another unforgettable showcase of clichés. And then a flower child with such an open mind as yours comes to talk to me about 'Instrumental Technique': you should know that technique is not fundamental; just look at people like Mike Portnoy (it's so boring and flat...); what matters is having style (I know I'm stating the obvious), and in their limited technique, the Beatles had "a lot of Style," which allowed them to stand out from other groups. Take even the excellent Jimi Hendrix; he had a lot of technique, a good voice, but his songs were Blues standards, spiced up with secular solos and assorted psychedelia; he certainly didn’t have the class of a composer like McCartney (or Brian Wilson).

Yes, but still, Riccardo doesn't know the artists he criticizes; he is always very vague in his critiques, never explaining why or how, just launching himself like a slingshot to make a good impression. Let's analyze his statement: "...I Jethro Tull hanno fatto sì e no due dischi che vale la pena di ascoltare...": what is he trying to convey? He is probably referring to Stand Up and Aqualung when mentioning the two valid albums by the Tull, perfectly aligned with the opinions of critics like Scaruffi and Bertoncelli; you take a couple of trips to their websites and come out with the ability to criticize any artist without even having listened to them. Because it's clear that Riccardo doesn't know the Jethro Tull, as his critiques are very vague: what doesn't convince him about this band? What are their weak points? Which tracks don't work as they should, weighing down the listening experience? ... Or his judgment on SGT Peppers: "...L'album, a mio avviso, è pessimo...", with a nice 1: what score can he give to Britney Spears if this album has already been assigned a 1? And above all, what does he mean by "...L'album, a mio avviso, è pessimo..."; has he perhaps supported his critiques with a constructive summary of what he doesn't appreciate about the album? No, he doesn't have Sgt Peppers, and that's why he remains so vague in his critique, hiding behind ambiguity. And I am ready to bet that he knows nothing about Queen, Genesis, and so on (oh dear, perhaps the most famous and trumpeted tracks); you can tell from the ever-present inconsistency of his critiques. In conclusion, I wanted to quote a statement by Frank Zappa about music criticism in general: "I critici musicali sono persone che non sanno scrivere che intervistano persone che non sanno parlare per un pubblico che non sa leggere."

In the Cage, the pop drift of Genesis, complete with a mega synthesizer solo.

Yes, they are mediocre albums, especially Peter Gabriel III, released in 1980 when Genesis came out with Duke. After Peter Gabriel's departure, Genesis became increasingly intriguing from an instrumental standpoint, with a pop drift that started in 1981, and that's undeniable—just listen to Duke ('80) and Abacab ('81). From what you say, I gather that you've stopped at "The lamb..." without even risking going further. Your common sense, however, is indicative of the society we live in; it’s certainly not your fault—nowadays everything has become standardized, even those who consider themselves alternatives like you. I’m going to eat now, bye, enjoy your meal.

"...Jethro Tull have made maybe two albums worth listening to..." you can tell immediately when you don’t know a band. With Queen, you only have the two Greatest Hits, it's clear as water. Explain to me why the post-Gabriel Genesis are rubbish? What did the mediocre Gabriel have to uplift a band like Genesis? He sang and acted but the music and often even the lyrics weren't even his. What dealt a blow to Genesis was Hackett's departure in '77, Gabriel's leaving was just a technical inconvenience EXCELLENTLY overcome (Up to Duke they are still great). But then, someone who preaches that the Residents are the best can't really make a case... For heaven's sake, tastes are tastes, but instead of trying to create that alternative image (the really cool ones), I would spend my time listening to more music, there’s so much to discover, in Ricca'