Lord

Thanks for the adjective. You really are out there, such an alternative, you don’t like the Beatles because you’re WAY TOO STRANGE. Since you’ve been on Debaser, all you do is engage in sterile polemics and fill your sentences with the usual anti-Beatles stereotypes and clichés, probably without ever having really listened to them. It almost seems like they killed your mother, considering how fiercely you attack them. You don’t like them? You’re perfectly free to listen to other music, but don’t go around preaching false theories, especially when they’re simply copied from the usual fake music critic, who is now as popular as Coca-Cola. By the way Riccardo, I haven’t yet heard you say that Queen were commercial, or that Genesis after Peter Gabriel were terrible, or that Jethro Tull with "A Passion Play" reached the lowest point of music... Affettuosissimi Saluti.

Hooray for Riccardo and his father Piero.

In my post above, between "own" and "one," there is an extra "at least." I apologize.

But is Mika really gay too? Then he's definitely a jerk; he could at least have the decency to differentiate himself from his idol...

Paul McCartney has one of the most versatile voices of all time, as well as being very elastic. Oh Darlyng is a shining example of his power. In my personal ranking, it could only be second to Freddie Mercury. I don't know the album in question, but the review makes me want to download it.

Meurglys_III, exactly... We might have a bit in common... Nothing, two completely different vocal universes. He has a perfectly normal voice; 30 years ago, a singer like him was the bare minimum.

But Keith Moon is the ultimate symbol of the non-technical drummer: the fact is he had style, and that's what matters (Moon is one of my favorites). Starr didn’t have technique, but he had style; Townshend also lacked technique but had style. Style is what counts, I know it's a clichéd phrase, but it’s true.

True, "Wild life" is a nice album no matter what they say.

Come on, if this resembles FREDDIE MERCURY,... His voice sounds more like a really bad copy of Mick Jagger (and I mean really bad); annoying singing, terrible falsetto (Peter Gabriel in Genesis handled falsettos better, and he’s not exactly the best at it). Thank God I don’t have the album, but my sister drives me crazy with some of his songs (among which is "Grace Kelly"), and I have to say this Mika here has a summer hit feel to him. The comparisons with the incredible Freddie seem frankly embarrassing to me, as they are just two completely different voices: Freddie with a sexually neutral, almost feminine falsetto could compete with a falsetto from Grace Slick, anyway, a unique falsetto, while Mika has the typical male falsetto like the Bee Gees, but even worse, almost always embarrassing and ultimately annoying. Try listening to "Grace Kelly" by this guy and immediately after "Killer Queen" by Queen, to realize how different their voices are. Then listen to a piece by the Rolling Stones from the late '60s to see what Mika’s voice could actually resemble (broadly speaking, of course).

The review is good, even though the need for another one was not really there. Moreover, I disagree with what you've stated; it seems that the album is a record from a band that is now tired and lacking inspiration, which is not true. Being POP-psychedelic, it doesn’t follow the rule of "twenty-minute hypnotic solos, noise,...", but rather seeks to combine the elegance of their pop with the colors of emerging psychedelia. The phrase about Fixing a Hole then, "...A piece that, in the hands of others, would have been a masterpiece...", is rather empty; it really doesn’t mean anything: it's like saying, "Stairway to Heaven in the hands of Gentle Giant would have been something completely different"—does that strike you as a coherent statement? And then, you treat "A Day in The Life" as if it were the 'cockroach' of the album; it’s one of the best pieces from the Beatles and in music, you can’t downplay such harmony with the insidious term "Funesta": let me remind you that along with Zappa and the Moody Blues, "A Day In The Life" is one of the first examples of a symphony linked to rock and pop music (it will give rise to progressive rock), and in my opinion, of the three mentioned, it is the best example: the orchestral parts are very balanced, never intrusive, and it boasts a cacophonous crescendo worthy of a classical composer. Finally, I want to defend Ringo Starr, because in this very track, he makes us feel that he is not exactly the last of the idiots (even PHIL COLLINS in an interview stated that he is always amazed every time he hears Ringo Starr in A Day In The Life); certainly not a drummer with outstanding technique, but also not a fool as some believe. The Beatles' technique is the typical technique of a 60s group, no more and no less than many other bands of the time. Nobody back then knew about the huge technical advancements that would occur in the 70s, nobody knew about Bill Bruford, Neil Peart, Phil Collins, or even John Henry Bonham, so the technique was just fine as it was. If names like those I just mentioned had existed in '67, the Beatles would have certainly adapted; it all depends on the masters you have and the reality you live in.