Lord

The precise execution of the '70s prog is, on average, technical, and above all, human. If you mention Dream Theater, here come the hemorrhoids. I really enjoy the raw touch, which can be combined with precision; listen to the Jethro Tull of Minstrel in the Gallery. In short, I think I prefer a rougher sound — which can also blend perfectly with progressive.

Sure, but even Kraftwerk didn't have all those synthesizers (maybe they did though...)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah here it is

Rock is dead from metastasis; it’s hard to pinpoint the exact year. Maybe a part of it is still alive, but it's too small to be noticed. One must say that with the 80s and the general standardization of music, much of rock has gone to hell. However, I wasn't saying that playing rock requires a lot of technique; on the contrary, sometimes roughness and imperfection are more satisfying. I'm just saying that Nirvana plays without spirit; they have no style, and who cares if the bassist was a hack? Paul McCartney, back in the Sgt. Pepper days, was merely a good bassist, but his technique was compensated by creativity and immense style (when you hear a McCartney song, you recognize it immediately, before he even starts singing with his unmistakable voice). You see, it’s the ABSENCE OF STYLE in recent times that has ravaged music. Today, a song is played with a coldness that not even a 40x40x40m cube can convey. You no longer feel that warmth of imperfection, of imprecision, or of a mistake, which makes you say, “oh, how beautiful, they sound like human beings.” Listen to, I don’t know, the first Doors album, or the Beatles, or even Genesis, Yes, Queen, King Crimson, or Creedence, or Jefferson Airplane... and you’ll realize the warmth and true sensations they convey, precisely because they created very dynamic and varied music with simple chords, played with heart. Today, a sloppy guitar like in "Heartbreaker" by Led Zeppelin wouldn’t even be considered. Nowadays, the market wants that plasticized, pseudo-devastating effect, compressed and filtered, and so all the artists bend to its rules and take it up the ass until it comes out of their mouths. I’m listening to "Workingman’s Dead" by the Grateful Dead, an example of music played with heart.

I am the Parkinson's disease because they represent the last gasps of rock, even though for me it has been dead for a while.

Musically speaking, Nirvana are like Parkinson's disease, too rigid and conformist. I don’t know their lyrics, but musically they were pathetic, not because they always used the same verse-chorus structure, but because there was no effort to make the song progress. Kurt would say, "Okay, I brought this song, G-Bm-G-C..." and underneath there spread a soulless 4/4 lacking any style (the drummer sounds like any hired hand), and the bassist would play the G corresponding to the guitar’s G and so on. Too schematic, and if you like, too academic to be a real rock band. The real flaw of all rock from the '90s onward is that you can perhaps distinguish the bands by the singer's voice, but the music sounds like it's played by session musicians: cold and lifeless, devoid of any accent, hyper-perfect, inhuman. I have nothing against returning to the roots of rock—bass-drums-guitar—but unfortunately, this return to the roots has been interpreted completely wrongly and without any style. In conclusion, for all the reasons I have listed, Nirvana are just another polished mainstream band (no more, no less than Negramaro).

Well, you see, there's no need to disguise oneself as intellectuals to make good music. The Queen in the seventies had a production that devours Pere Ubu (do you think they're original? Listen to Frank Zappa 10 years earlier).

Better the Prog...

Masterpiece, it's very Hardrock. But are you sure they had all those synthesizers?

I don’t know them.