47

Expressing criticism is more than legitimate. I've done it multiple times, and I will continue to do so in the future if I find it appropriate. (In other words, if I feel like it.) In my very personal history of rock, there are bands that are even worse than Queen, make no mistake about that, but honestly, it seems to me that you are the one who has to prove why they would constitute an important part of rock history. Frankly, they were indifferent to me until I met some fans who tried to convince me of their indispensability in modern rock, without succeeding. Now, you've also shown that Queen fans are akin to Ultras Lazio; don't touch the object of their love, or else you're in trouble. So I'm telling you that I don't have to prove anything to you because perhaps there are a thousand people better than me at doing it, as per the link, which contains many things I agree with: The History of Rock Music. Queen: biography, discography, reviews, links Far from being a fundamental or seminal group for the evolution of rock itself, they were undoubtedly an example of great commercial success, thanks to easy melodies and various imitations of prog and hard rock in a glam/gay key. I think that nonetheless, the early albums are somewhat redeemable for the quality of the music contained, but they have never said anything that hasn't already been said by others infinitely better. Regards.

Every time there are reviews of Nirvana, it's always the same comments: "they sucked with their four chords" "Cobain was mythologized but was an artistically mediocre figure" "music for fake alternatives." I like both Zappa and Nirvana; this nonsense is inconclusively useless.

that henry rollins devour them...

I wanted to say those years, I think it was clear anyway.

Frankly, your vitriolic comments seem decidedly out of tone for this conversation. Alright, I made you angry, but why do you defend Queen so fiercely? I don't care at all about convincing you that Queen isn't part of rock history, and it seems pointless to mention who was around back then in terms of musical quality, because maybe you know them even better than I do. You're just trying to elevate your passion for this band, which undeniably was somewhat likable. Anyway, I know a lot of people who drive miles and get excited for Ligabue; is that rock history? Moreover, your comment above is definitely hard to read, perhaps too much for someone not enlightened like you, probably. Ah, I’m famous among my friends for my endless patience, so future personal attacks or arrogant attitudes will simply make me abandon the conversation; I have no intention of arguing with a hardcore fan. Regards.

Explain to me, reading between the lines, where you find presumption and arrogance. Subjectively, I find them annoying (which I believe I have every right to say) and objectively, the fact that they are included among the greats of all time in other countries shows that the reasoning I mentioned before applies not just to Italy. (And this saddens me a lot because like you, I notice a certain backwardness in Italian musical thinking.) It's obvious that any artist has their fans (but the Queen have exponentially more), but if it’s only and exclusively for them that a group reaches the pinnacle in rock, then there’s something wrong. Anyway, I don’t want to continue the discussion because that would give importance to the Queen themselves, and I think that here on Debaser, there are very few who consider them an important part of rock history.

Ah, anyway, in the review you say that Rush continued in the eighties with their style, which is not entirely true, considering that they also blended their sounds with synthesizers and followed the canonical song structure. You also seem to overlook that King Crimson continued their musical discourse in the '80s with the trilogy of Discipline-Beat-Three of a Perfect Pair, which I find very representative of what prog was/could have been during those years. (What a pain I am..)

The Deep Purple were counted among the prog scene for Fireball, their beautiful yet uncertain album that spanned from prog ragas to hard rock (a little bit), but in general, they should not be considered part of the prog movement at all, due to their radically different attitude and approach to composition. However, yesterday I heard something from the aforementioned album, and it all struck me as a bit cold and too winking at the synth-pop that was all the rage back then, which I honestly can't quite digest. De gustibus.

I too love King Crimson and VDGG, and maybe the first one is an exaggeration. (at least for this album) I find them extremely unlikable, especially because of the idolatry towards them from fans, which over the years has convinced everyone to label them as a cult band. It almost seems that a proper musical formation must necessarily go through listening to their albums, when they represented a baroque and highly derivative interlude in the rock of those years. Ultimately, I consider them a mediocre group that has acquired legendary status, and they definitely don't belong in the top 10 of rock. Absolutely not.

it's all fine, but that's enough with the nirvana...