Lord

Sorry, I'm not as cultured as you are; you are part of an elite and listen to elite music. Don't hang on to Riccardo's nonsense. My comment about Al Bano and the Tangerine Dream is far too clear; if you don't want to understand it and are decontextualizing some things to build your own meaning, feel free to do so... But it shows that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. If you want some advice, download, download as much as you can, the Beatles and other essential groups, because I see you're missing the basics. You focus on the details, but you lack the fundamentals.

"...He knows very well that his music is easy-listening, and on the other hand, it's the music he likes." So you're really superior, Riccardo, forgive me for not recognizing your greatness right away. Easy-listening, for me, doesn't exist, or it does exist and encompasses groups ranging from Al Bano and Romina Power to Tangerine Dream. Easy-listening, meaning easy to listen to: it depends on the ear you have. For example, Lizard by King Crimson is easy to listen to for me, and consider that last week I had it in the car and was listening to it on my way to work; and mind you, King Crimson is not considered an easy-listening group (as you mean it). To me, there’s no difference between Paul McCartney and King Crimson: I appreciate both very much, and I realize that even though they make different genres, my ear listens to them in the same way. In my opinion, Riccardo, you should say, "Well, I don’t like the Beatles, even though they made history," instead of coming up with highly unoriginal theories, moreover without even having listened to one of their albums. I would stop here, especially since you're not even original in criticizing the Beatles (given the trend that’s so popular).

...damn, I miss you

The American underground is a niche genre in Ricca'. Pere Ubu, who knows them?

Perhaps International Intrigue is better, but in any case, we are talking about history.

"From the mid-sixties onward, the Beatles dabbled with five seconds of sitar in pop tunes, pretty yes, but without too many revolutionary claims, even though they believed in it themselves (in the east brought to the west), just because they were more famous than God. They did the same with a few stamps of LSD taken randomly, just to see some mandarin trees and then tell everyone about it, excited like schoolboys who can't wait to share their good grades with their parents to get a little pocket money. Maybe they wanted a little pocket money too. Let's drop the maybe." This earns you a nice 1. You who pseudo-criticize the Beatles are now a mass phenomenon, popping up like mushrooms. Yet from your nickname, you seemed so reasonable and credible. Thanks for the advice, I’ll download it now.

Riccardo, can't you stop quoting all the previous messages in your post that you want to reply to? "...Is it maybe because Beatles fans share absolute mediocrity with their favorite group?" This could also be a statement worth discussing, but then I see who posted it (Riccardo) and understand that it comes from someone who doesn't even know 1/8 of the Beatles' discography, and then it all falls apart. Riccardo, if I were you, I would work e-mule to the bone to get the Beatles' discography (I recommend getting it original), and also for other bands whose names you only know and about which you’ve even made judgments (like Gentle Giant, for example). But please, focus especially on the Beatles, because it's not possible that someone your age (21 if I'm not mistaken) still knows nothing about them. Just to give you an idea of what these beetles were like...

Riccardo, go listen to Kagoski's symphony of pots and cutlery with your father Piero.

Certo! Inviami pure il testo e procederò con la traduzione.

"Genres: britpop" a nice 1 no one can take away from you