Lord

What you, Easycure, say about the Beatles I find more relatable to the Doors. They really focused on image and mass reaction, so music was no longer viewed just as notes but as transgression. The Beatles stopped being a cultural phenomenon (if they ever were) in '66, the year they decided not to perform anymore, creating a significant detachment from the audience, who thereafter saw the Beatles primarily in Booklets. The truth is that the Beatles are what they are because they are the Mother of every existing or past rock group, not because they anticipated everything and everyone, but because they were the first true MUSIC GROUP in the history of the human race. That’s why their importance is so significant, because for better or worse, every group identifies with the Beatles. With the Beatles, the reality of a MUSIC GROUP is born, a more powerful, creative, and specialized entity; the music group is incredibly superior to the solo singer-songwriter, as it's endowed with a personal style, an imprint that holds the strength and creativity of 4 or 5 members. So, after this rambling, I conclude that the Beatles are at the top because they were the first MODERN music group, to which everyone inevitably owes a debt. Like them or not, they are the quintessential music group, with a perfect career (year after year the quality of their records increased, while for almost all other bands, it will be the opposite), and that’s why they shot Hey Jude into space, not a song by the Grateful Dead, because they represent a distillation of human musical art, a condensation of POP, balanced between harmony and exploration, in a sense perfect. Thus, the Beatles are seen as the she-wolf that nursed all the other groups to come. Now enough about the Beatles; by the way, I’m not even listening to them at the moment, I’m doing a full immersion with Antonius Rex.

It is said that the most beautiful Italian rock album is "Arbeit Macht Frei": while I partially disagree, at least in the days of Area, being famous didn't mean making a lot of money, and that pushed you to create albums that were qualitatively more fluid and inspired.

please

Ahh, this isn’t bad, and the Queen are terrible? Yours is just political and intellectual hate. There are two types of music listeners: those who listen to what they want and couldn’t care less if Scaruffi and company give 4 stars to Uriah Heep (I think I belong to this group), and those who follow a certain pseudo-philosophy, according to which those who have Che Guevara on the bass drum are great, the Queen are fascists, I don’t listen to them, Pere Ubu are unlistenable, so they must surely be superior music, the Beatles are commercial, Pink Floyd without Barrett suck, progressive is just self-indulgent, hard rock is dirty,... you get me? Scaruffi urinates and everyone rushes to drink from it like goats. One must think for oneself, and you clearly don’t know that, you’ve filled your posts with clichés and outrageous stereotypes like "'The Modern Dance' is worth several times the entire discography of the Queen”: I've heard something like that a thousand times. The fact is, while Pere Ubu do their wanking for a few, the Queen managed to give us unforgettable moments between '73 and '80, which will be remembered forever, while the poor Pere Ubu will gradually be forgotten. I’m not saying they were incapable; they knew their stuff instrumentally, but unfortunately they lacked character, and style too. You can recognize Brian May and Roger Taylor (I’ll leave Mercury aside) in the crowd, while Pere Ubu, apart from the chubby guy who sings, seem like session musicians. It’s impersonal music, which therefore leaves a more superficial trace. Let me give you an example: I also really appreciate Camel, but I don’t go saying they’re the best because they had little character, and above all, the rhythm section, although of excellent level, sounds like it was played by any random session musicians, devoid of style. Yet when I feel like it, I listen to them again and I like them. So listen to Pere Ubu and enjoy them, but don’t raise them too high, because they are what they are.

Come on, albums like Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Rubber Soul, The Beatles, Magical Mystery Tour, Abbey Road... have you ever listened to the last ones? How can anyone say they're terrible? It's great music, not technically brilliant, but very creative. If you cling to technique, then you should only listen to Dream Theater (Oh God, no!!!!!). I don’t understand all this hostility towards the Beatles in favor of the admittedly excellent Rolling Stones: the Rolling Stones are fundamentally blues, while the Beatles, over the years, developed a more European and almost 'baroque' style, with more cultured and linguistically refined lyrics (no matter what people say, the Beatles' 'yeah yeah yeah' phase started to fade around '65, and during the period from '66 to '69, they produced much more elevated lyrics: Let It Be, A Day in the Life, The Walrus, Dear Prudence, and many others). It’s not necessary to be ugly, dirty, mean, or on drugs (come on, Lennon was a cocaine addict) to create good music; you don’t have to shred guitars for 20 minutes to make good music, you don’t even have to sing in slang. And it’s not true that something else was happening around them, because everyone was perfectly aware of the Beatles, and no one hated them; they were simply another group. Hendrix, for example, was known to perform Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band at his concerts, and many other bands of that time covered the Beatles or were inspired by them (Yes, Procol Harum, the earliest Pink Floyd, the earliest Who…). The supposed feud between the Beatles and other bands of the same era is manufactured, created somewhat by Scaruffi, somewhat by the tendency to flip things around every now and then, that’s all. Those who love good music just listen to them without overthinking, like "but Red Crayola made chaos..." or "but Jimi Hendrix had such quick fingers," otherwise, it never ends.

After this album, Ligabue should be judged on songs, because by album, it would be seriously insufficient. For example, songs like "Leggero," "Ho perso le parole," and a very few others don’t bother me. The fact remains that today he is truly worn out; nothing listenable comes out of that big head anymore. Albums like "Nome e Cognome" or "Fuori come va" make the first three records of Lucianone seem like masterpieces: in his early days, he had a certain felliniesque quality...

Beautiful review. The 4 for the album is affectionate; it would actually be a 3. It is undoubtedly Ligabue's masterpiece, containing songs like "I duri hanno 2 cuori," "Ho messo via," "LA BALLERINA DEL CARILLON," "Piccola città eterna," and the final track, which stands a notch or two above today's singer-songwriter scene.

Yes, but (!), you have to understand that it’s now a trend to go against the Beatles, a bit like long hair in the '70s. You'll see that after a while things will calm down.

Come on, they're talking about the Beatles as if they were Boyzone or Westlife. The Beatles were a musical group, not a boyband, and they made quality music in the second half of the '60s.

Midge Ure has a great voice. I have "Vienna," and it's a great album, it's a shame about the use of the electronic drum, a bit out of place (while with Kraftwerk it never feels off, for example).