woodstock

Alright. I'm sharing the comment from a friend of mine, as I don't understand anything about trance:
"How dare you minimize in such a way a genre loved and honored worldwide, a true universal religion!!!! Think of your Iron Maiden because it seems you have no say when it comes to the trance genre!!! And what can I say about those superficial technical notes about this genre you've mentioned... trance transmits transcendent emotions and superficial melodies are not needed to silence the audience... the simplicity and monotony of the musical motifs inevitably enters the listener's brain and constantly repeats even when the stereo is off, giving you a sense of transcendence, renowned spirituality.... the album ASOT 2006 appears original from the very first notes... unforgettable is the intro version by Mike Foyle with the usual collaboration of John O'Callaghan... a western atmosphere with the track by Sunlounger... to conclude.. the most famous record in the Netherlands in 2006: Sail, an old-school 90s atmosphere that delivers the last sonic emotions with a captivating groove!!! The only thing I agree with is the following: TRANCE not TRANS."

What the hell are you talking about, Holdsworth? The only relationship he can have with the record is the one I mentioned above; for everything else, nothing.

and then the single in question does not appear on the album: so it has nothing to do with it at all.

nothing to say. the two songs originate from an idea by john and paul, who wanted to compose an album focused on the places of their childhood, following the lead of "in my life" from rubber soul and "eleanor rigby" from revolver. unfortunately, capitol needed a new single, and the entire project faded away, much to the group's disappointment. by the way, the next song to be recorded was "a day in the life."

But how much do you write? Is that all you do all day?

The admiration that comes through from the review, as you say, is due to the fact that I consider the Rolling Stones to be easily the best rock group for 20 years (let's say the 60s/70s). You are probably right in saying that the fact should have been explained better for those who might not know; but I took it for granted, and maybe I was wrong. Nonetheless, I stand by my position: I believe that in that context - especially because they were different years than those we have now - a murder was possible, if not likely, obviously also due to the incompetence of the Hell's Angels. But don’t bring up comparisons with today’s concerts: those, as you said, are just a bunch of nonsense.

By "the most rock" I mean that in that context the assassination was inevitable, from my point of view. Period. If someone wants to be moralistic, that's fine. But at the time it was 1969, not 2007. As for the anti-Woodstock story, I had heard it differently, meaning as I wrote it. If, ONLYforADULTS, you are convinced of what you say, I gladly take responsibility. There’s always something to learn, I wrote that above too.

Yes, in fact, as a review it’s not the best... but those are respectable points of view, even if I don’t share them myself, they are still always respectable. I’m not familiar with the work.

I’ll respond to the first two: in my opinion, the first collection doesn’t truly embody the "real" Stones simply because it consists mostly of early songs (like "Come On," "Satisfaction," "Get Off of My Cloud,"...), which are beautiful, yes, but in my view, they don’t significantly represent what the Rolling Stones would later become.
As for the second point, obviously, Altamont turned into a tragedy, but it was conceived as an "anti-Woodstock." Looking back, the death of that boy could only have happened at that occasion. At the time, the Rolling Stones were undoubtedly the most "rock," with their virtues and flaws.

Ok Currahee, I misunderstood.