47

Did the Rolling Stones invent rock? (without the roll?) The Beatles pop? But wait, weren't the Stones pop?

Here we go again with the usual Beatles/Rolling Stones dualism... I love the Beatles, especially their last two albums, but I've always preferred the Stones for mostly sentimental reasons. In my opinion, aside from their identical time frame (although not entirely, since the Stones were at their best from '68 to '72), the two bands have nothing in common, so much so that any comparison generally starts from wrong assumptions, one of which is innovation... As Larrok said, the Stones played what they loved most, and they did it so well and with such media impact that they are today the very paradigm of Rock 'n Roll. (as rightly pointed out by Percy) Those who don't appreciate them probably do so because they seek a certain intricacy and complexity in their music, which is quite in vain. Even refinement would wait for the last works of the golden period to make an appearance; in the beginning (and even for quite some time afterward), they simply limited themselves to playing a direct, driving rock blues, as few could, but stylistically, it was "reactionary." Nevertheless, for me, they were the best of the '60s.

I saw Mirage for a little in a store downtown, since I miss them, and the user reviews on this album make me think I’ll start with that one. (By the way, it has a cover that fits perfectly with the summer scenery of Milan..) Regards.

sad wings and stained class are my favorites. demolition is not underrated, it's just plain bad..

well, even peking 'o doesn't joke around... :)

"What is necessary for democracy is blind faith in the capabilities of man." I respond with another cliché: "If elections could really change things, they would have been abolished a long time ago." I would say that if our democracy is illusory, the one related to music is somewhat so (though less so). We can download anything; as long as our hard drive is full, we can be "free" or not, but it matters little. As everyone has said, it is now easier to "monitor" the music market in search of valid proposals, assuming the absence of influences that direct attention. But referring to the case of 15/16-year-olds, it is only a total broadening of horizons. The years that were once necessary to procure, listen to, and love records now serve a contextualizing function; the records left behind after hasty listens and false digestion will resurface, should they be part of that listening journey made up of sacred tastes. Now the horizons are only potentially broader, but I would say that the idea of the depersonalization of the listening/listener relationship is a bunch of nonsense from those who want to claim a certain (presumed or true) "integrity."

I find that psychopompe is more than right here. I myself have been (and still am, though to a lesser extent) a bulimic listener of a bit of everything. Not because I wanted to boast about some vastness of cognitive horizons, but often out of simple and pure curiosity, which, combined with the easy availability, made me overlook certain deserving records that were never truly absorbed. Now, haste has given way to a total love for listening, and above all, I have no pretensions of fully understanding works that might be the result of years of conceptual study after just a few listens. In general, one must make a sincere evaluation of how much music stored on the hard disk can truly be defined as "one's own," and this gives a different dimension to listening, enjoyably outside the prevailing "fast-food/fast-life" logic.

From what I've heard on YouTube, this agghiastru doesn't deserve all the praise that fills this page... unless, as previously mentioned, you are the companion of agghiastru or agghiastru himself.

I only just noticed the review, heartfelt compliments for this fantastic page. Farewell to you, and best wishes for good things. Regards.

and I in turn join ghemison