47

@ezekiel: if you haven't seen the movie, what are you talking about? the myth arises from a relationship between man and history; the myth is born from reality. the film illustrates (carefully, perhaps) that reality, without rhetoric: there's no plastic aftertaste of Hollywood production here, starting from del toro's completely understated acting. rather, the humanity of the story evokes much deeper suggestions than those derived from a so-called "inflated" representation. then I would like to know who found the film boring who expected to see...

Congratulations on the review; the album intrigues me a lot.

here not yet the identical-records-holding. I mean, the next one is the same, but the same as this. and this is nice, regardless of what they say.

not too viking, though.

elected: but do you have the slightest idea why the code has been successful? "educational and persuasive purpose" is a bit laughable...

oh yeah, I was wondering what had become of them. A review that I think says everything that can be said.

really nice review. she looked for it for me :)

I believe that no film should be dubbed.

Experimentation is not just about playing reversed tapes or sounding psychedelic. Brian Jones was an experimenter, but in my opinion, the best albums are the ones without him; experimentation is an indicator of experimentation (indeed), not of musical quality. According to this reasoning, Tom Waits, who is a "primitive" by choice and who fuses jazz, blues, vaudeville, and Brechtian theater in the '80s with synthesizers, shouldn't even be considered. That said, Faust and Can have gone further than the Floyd in terms of experimentation. @sentence: There's definitely nothing to say about the first three albums of PF, which are masterpieces, and also about Atom Heart Mother, which I find very beautiful. However, I find Gilmour boring and limited, both as a composer and as a guitarist, and this hasn't been good for the Floyd when they gave him a (too) significant space.

"recognized by everyone" but please. you're saying things that show an embarrassing musical ignorance. there were heaps of bands of equal caliber to the Floyd in Germany alone during those years, and you're comparing them to the Stones. "the Rolling Stones were too 'artistically limited,' they only left their mark in their GENRE and in their time." rock 'n' roll, excuse me if that's not enough. the Abba left even more marks than the Floyd, what do we make of that? but what publicity, the music speaks for itself: just look at any Beggars Banquet, an Aftermath, a Let It Bleed, or the albums mentioned earlier. stuff that could fuel a hundred careers of some random band.