Longliverock

PS: and I'm not messing with you: perhaps I was wrong to say that I am the creme de la creme, I should have said that I AM PART of the creme de la creme of the '60s-'70s-'80s. But they absolutely belong there, each in their own genre and style...

No, instead the average rating does indeed matter: because if from one point of view classical music and jazz, as Scaruffi says, are "superior" genres (but only from a very relative point of view), it is also true that rock is superior (by far) to hip-hop, rap, and pop. Look, if you tell me that "Burn" is rated 4 and (to name one) "Wake up" by Hilary Duff is rated 4, you are putting them on the same level. The WORST album by Dylan deserves a 5.5-6 (but maybe even more), while the BEST album by Hilary Duff is a 4.5-5. It doesn't involve the length of the discography, but if you give any Aerosmith album a 4, then you have to give Gigi D'Agostino's albums -2: calculate the average rating of pop-rap-hip hop albums and the average of rock albums, all of them: the final average will be similar; unfortunately, it would take too long to calculate it accurately, but roughly speaking, the difference in average would be only a few tenths in favor of rock (and I’m not even sure about that). Meanwhile, and perhaps, as already mentioned, rightly so, there is a clear difference between the average of rock albums and the average of jazz and classical works (roughly a difference of 2 full ratings). If you give the worst album by Jethro Tull a 3, what would you give Britney Spears? -1?? This is Scaruffi's biggest mistake: because, according to this reasoning, 70% of the ratings would need to be changed (all rock albums rated from 1 to 3 should go up by 1, and all pop-hip hop-rap-dance albums should go down by 1/2 to 1 rating). And now tell me, in your opinion, is the artistic difference between a good rock band and a hip-hop artist greater or smaller than the difference between a good rock band and a good jazz musician? In other words: is Britney Spears, artistically, closer to Led Zeppelin than they are to Miles Davis? Here we are blaspheming; let's not joke around, guys, not even a little bit...

Immense albums and artists.

And of course, the votes, to fully confirm what I've said...

An underrated group. The Finley are the most underrated band in the world, but wrongly so. In reality, they are fantastic musicians: on lead guitar is the first and most skilled of Steve Vai's disciples, who is rightly following in the master's footsteps and surpassing him in the complexity of the solos, displaying, among other things, a genius and originality in the compositions that is hard to find again since Jimi Hendrix. The rhythm guitar, on the other hand, is beautifully played by one of the best young guitarists on the planet: riffs of such beauty that they have earned him praise from the greatest rock guitarists around, and the nickname "Italian Jimmy Page." The keyboard parts were directly performed by Jon Lord, who felt honored and excited to be called to play with what is today the best band on the planet. For the bass, Billy Sheehan was invited, who felt mortified for not being able to perform directly and connect with his new musical idols: the bass parts, in fact, were pre-recorded in New York at a Universal studio. The drums were played by the "John Bonham of the 21st century": technique that would make Portnoy pale, execution speed surpassing Mike Mancino (he managed to break his record for hits in 1 minute), and he is also one of the most expressive and exciting drummers ever, combining incomparable technique with a warm and unique sound that greatly reminds one of Mitch Mitchell and John Bonham; he has also surpassed Vinnie Paul Abbott from Pantera in finding new techniques for playing double bass, and Abbott himself admitted (I quote): "I could have never reached such heights; he has surpassed me and all drummers in history in innovation and originality of style: he is unique." For the lyrics, Mogol was brought on board, who, feeling unworthy of the task, decided to get help from his old friend and lyricist Lucio Battisti, making him resurrect through an exorcism. Lastly, but not least, the vocal parts, the absolute peak, are performed by a singer whom Steven Tyler himself describes as follows (literal quote): "He is my example. When I sing, I try to draw inspiration from him; for my high notes and stretches, I drew directly from him, trying and trying again to become more and more like him, but I could never succeed because he is the best." Already defined the "king of all singers," and after having dethroned Freddie Mercury after only the first album with his incomparable range (Michael Matijevic, in a recent duet with him, couldn't keep up, given that he has a range that spans 5 octaves), a powerful and extremely warm timbre (for this reason, he has also been called "the new Ronnie James Dio" or "the new Glenn Hughes"), refined technique, he is now the new and solid reference point for all those who dream of singing and becoming rockstars. Some may turn up their noses because they are only on their second album, but here we have all the elements to affirm that we are facing the best band of all time...

DEEP PURPLE
Shades (1968), 5/10
Book Of Taliesyn (1968), 5/10
Deep Purple (1969), 5/10
Concerto for Group and Orchestra (1969), 6.5/10
In Rock (1970), 6/10
Fireball (1971), 5.5/10
Machine Head (1972), 7/10
Made In Japan (1972), 7.5/10 (live)
Who Do We Think We Are (1973), 4/10
Burn (1974), 4/10
Stormbringer (1974), 4/10
Come Taste The Band (1976), 4/10
Perfect Strangers (Mercury, 1984),
The House of Blue Light (1987), 4/10
Nobody's Perfect (1988), 4/10
Slaves And Masters (RCA, 1990), 4/10
The Battle Rages On (Giant, 1993), 4/10
Purpendicular (1996), 5/10
Abandon (1998), 5/10
Bananas (2003), 4/10
...And we are talking about Deep Purple, guys, Deep Purple!!.. what will be the average rating? Roughly less than 5... Let's hear it, Larrok and Riccardo, what do you think?.. Ah, of course, it’s not over: do you want me to post the ratings for AC-DC, BON JOVI, BLACK SABBATH, KISS, BEATLES, BOB DYLAN, IRON MAIDEN, AEROSMITH, PINK FLOYD POST-BARRETT, BEACH BOYS, VAN HALEN, PANTERA, JETRO TULL, CAT STEVENS, QUEEN, MOTORHEAD...? Basically, the crème de la crème of rock from the '60s, '70s, and '80s. Oh, I almost forgot: dear Scaruffi is so good at finding and reviewing (usually well) niche bands that only he and those who produced them practically know (and I’m not sure about the latter) that he has forgotten to review EUROPE, CINDERELLA, MR. BIG, RACER X, and many other bands, some of which are very famous... Or maybe it's just me who got lost in that labyrinthine site made specifically for that?... You tell me...

Oh my gosh, what a mess... I had to scroll back through dozens of comments... Anyway, first of all, THE RATINGS: Scaruffi is someone who knows how to speak, he understands the art of rhetoric, and if we focus on what he says, we will never reach a meeting point because he knows how to "confuse the crowds." I remember I contested the fact that he said: "Bruce Dickinson... hysterical screams like Gillan": for me, he had dismissed two of the best singers of the last 40 years in one fell swoop, while for Riccardo, "hysterical" had a positive connotation: see, Scaruffi knows how to do this, and he does it very well. However, there’s one thing that can’t be mistaken: the RATINGS. Numbers are exact matters; if the reception of an artist can be interpreted by anyone in a positive or negative way, the ratings are not up for debate because a 4 is a 4, an 8 is an 8 (on a scale from 1 to 10). So, if Riccardo and Larrok wanted to know from Lord and Flinstone if Slint, Tortoise, Dinosaur Jr, etc. are great bands (even if niche), highly rated by Scaruffi, let's see what they think of THESE ratings now...

I understand, but I am the one who uses that style the most; I always use it... alright, okay, I admit it was a mistake..:-) "The Bible may seem like absolute truth because its interpretation has been so distorted and twisted that anyone can read what they want into it using metaphors. The truth is that it is merely a collection of mythicized texts that have been given excessive meaning and value so that it could be used by the church as a yoke over the 'faithful'. I then wonder, if it is really the word of God, why is it so contradictory and confusing for those who read it, creating myriad of different sects? The word of God should be clear and unchanged over time; instead, over the centuries, the interpretation of the Bible has changed according to social and historical changes." It is not the Bible that creates confusion for those who read it; it is humans who distort its meaning for their own convenience and personal interest. Believe me, I’m telling you this as someone who has read it all several times and well, and has heard testimonies from the most diverse people. Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has done things that deviate from the Bible as far as north is from south (and it still is today), to manipulate crowds of ignorant and bigoted "believers" (and not just the Vatican: today, more than ever, with new age movements and the philosophy of relativism, there is a greater effort to create confusion). But the Bible is something entirely different...

The vote.

Album rated 3+/3.5. I also think it's not the least beautiful of the Maiden albums (in my opinion slightly better than "No Prayer for the Dying" and especially "Virtual XI"), but it’s not an extremely memorable album (apart from "Sign of the Cross" and "Fortunes of War"). And sure, Blaze Bayley isn’t worthless, but Bruce is on another planet. However, giving it a 1 is really excessive; it’s classic bashing from the detractors—especially of Maiden. The average rating right now is 1.50, the same as an album by Zero Assoluto and the latest by Avril Lavigne, making me realize that the majority of those who have voted so far don't understand a damn thing. I repeat: it’s an album rated 3+/3.5.