47

I think like Melissa. And I would also add the vdgg.

I’m referring to the same groups of punk roots, which were merely a further simplification of that abc, an abc that had been stripped of its "soul" (blues, sometimes more, sometimes less) through kraut and had become cold and frightening concrete music. But if punk derives from the Stones (I’m convinced it does, it’s stuck at the abc that is Stones-mortgaged) and it represents a conceptual and expressive step backward compared to prog (in my opinion), one can say that the "steps forward" come from a reinterpretation of those "steps backward" made by punk, and this can lead to the assertion that they stem from something that was outdated from the start, just as much or equally as much as prog was. Then of course, I like the Velvet Underground.

I've never heard them, but they've been spoken of very highly to me, beyond the innovations. Rece bella.

"very faithful to the studio versions, with few digressions, typical of the progressive era": this is not true, the king crimson of lark's based entire live sets on improvisation, and the well-known pieces were overly diluted... nevertheless, the yes are great (even if lately the sound a bit "pomp" isn't to my taste) and a beautiful review, truly written with care.

@lux: I completely agree with j&r on one thing: the Vu are in my opinion absolutely less relevant than certain things by the Stones, whose lessons have been absorbed by decades and decades of rock, to the point that they are now the ABC of rock on which (more or less) every record that has been produced is largely based. The Vu, in my view, have simply turned excess into art, extremizing all the musical currents present up to that point, so that we find a bit of everything ("all tomorrow parties" rhythmically is traditional Indian music...) but always within the boundaries of the indefinite; theoretically, they are the progenitors of every avant-garde, but I'm not sure they had this awareness during the compositional process. Regarding punk, it's true that this is just a subjective opinion, but it's because I believe that evaluating an album with historical consciousness is misleading to its value. Let me explain: punk is considered important in hindsight because then bands like Black Flag, Pere Ubu, and Pixies were born (even Slint, come on), but in reality, every artistic expression starts from something that already exists, so if the Pistols & co had stayed in the basement, music now would simply be different. Sorry if I bored you with these digressions... best regards.

I quote Opel, "OK Computer" is the starting point of Radiohead worth considering, the best probably being "Amnesiac." It's a stunning album nonetheless, and the quality of the tracks speaks for itself, from the finely crafted pop of "No Surprises" and "Karma Police" to the intelligent rock of "Paranoid Android." There are also some Crimson-esque guitars in "Airbag." The perspective of Radiohead as innovators is, in my opinion, completely misguided; they should be framed for what they are: talented and inspired composers of muzak (not supermarket variety, though). (Still, more or less...)

The VU can also be included in the "classic" rock landscape, I think. They institutionalized playing badly as a form of art, of rebellion, similar to what's happening in certain modern sculpture. Conceptually, they are immense; however, in purely musical terms (which is the only important aspect), they do not impress me at all. I also think that if I saw them live, my impression would be the same. Not all shifts in perspective during the compositional process are, in my view, positive. Punk was a revolution, but musically it disgusts me, and quite a lot... And anyway, true talent frightens listeners who cannot fit it into a precise idea of the artist's modus operandi; for many movements within alternative music, this process is very simple, and coincidentally, you find yourself facing bands that make their nice "revolution" or something that seems like it and then disappear after two albums.
+Zappa
-VU

what does Scaruffi have to do with it? Anyway, it was harmless controversy, let's not get too heated about it ;-)

@ledeep: no one has ever complained about off-topic on debaser
@lux: vu and stones are two different bands with different attitudes, just like the people who make up their lineups. the comparison with dc is misleading; the stones have become conservative, but they've pushed boundaries just as much as the vu. and for me, the banana remains one of the most overrated albums in history. I might be cursing, maybe this isn't the case, but we shouldn't confuse originality with a lack of talent...
ah, and I'm certainly not a fan of the stones, but let's give Caesar what is Caesar's, as it should be.

the review is truly filled with clichés, sorry, I can't give you more than a two. I suggest you move on to less "inflated" subjects. As for this album, beyond its merits, it has been talked about definitely more than it deserved. Anyway, I like it...