woodstock

Absolutely right. However... neither classical music nor jazz have undergone the same temporal evolution that rock has experienced (jazz pretty much stagnated around the late '70s, classical slightly earlier, I believe). What I mean is that when I think about a similar album, I inevitably compare it to today's records (which, by the way, I usually find pretty terrible) or at least to albums from about ten years ago. When I think about Bach, or Louis Armstrong, or Jaco, I know they are quite "frozen" in time. I hope I’ve written decently.

MATTEO: No, I would never place Malmsteen among the greatest of all time. Among the most technical guitarists of all time, yes, but among the best, no. Let's make a jazz comparison hoping we don't horrify anyone: Is Miles Davis perhaps a "technical" trumpeter? I believe you can find dozens more technically skilled. And yet, it’s Miles. Why?

Dear soulman, it seems you've hit the nail on the head.

And we agree; however, I believe that when evaluating an album in its - so to speak - "entirety," one must consider not only the strictly musical aspect but also the communicative one. Otherwise, people like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Lou Reed, De André (the first ones that come to mind) shouldn't be taken into account, and maybe Malmsteen should be ranked among the greatest of all time. P.S. It had been a while since I last discussed with knowledgeable people, compliments.

I intervene even though I don't know much about Nirvana, not being a die-hard fan. However... on a technical level, one cannot deny that Grohl had drive (just listen to the intro of Smells), nor that Novoselic played well, as Matteo said. As for the rest, I believe the definition given by ondarock (the only decent one they've managed to come up with over the years) is appropriate: that Nevermind is "the SOCIALLY most important album in history." Now, whether it’s historically significant, I can't say; but I believe it captures the essence of the good '90s. Their merit (and I'm not discovering this!) was to interpret an entire generation, with music that derived from hardcore and punk. But anyway, an album like "Warehouse" by Husker (which I adore, by the way) is filled with technical errors (the synchronicity between bass and drums is never perfect, and the guitar sometimes goes off time, as in These Important Years and others that I should re-listen to). Here, we're not talking about Blackmore vs Page; we’re talking about punk, and I believe technique was the last thing those bands cared about.

No, it's fine... I ask you because if there's room for improvement through some criticism, I'm always open to it. As for the initial discussion, I believe that certain albums like this one are so distant in terms of sound, ideals, date, production, and everything else from what we're used to that simply elevating them to classics isn't enough if we want to talk about them. That's why I didn't give a rating - and I usually do - and that's the reason for the initial discussion. Goodbye.

I, as for my listening, stopped at Buzz Factory, I’ll have to catch up. I like these screamings, but if it’s true that the sound is a bit more polished in the other works, that doesn’t mean I won’t like the next ones more. PS the rating 3 DOES NOT EQUAL a 6 for me, otherwise we would have to remove the odd numbers from a hypothetical decimal scale (no 7, no 5, no 9). For me, it’s a good album.

stefano, why?

stefano, why?

And to conclude (really this time!) the speech about Green, who "in terms of genius had a lot to teach Page," I think it would deserve some examples. Where does the genius lie?