Rooftrampler92

Ah, I hadn't seen your clarification. By the way, I actually got it right by mistake, because the Coacci I'm talking about is precisely the one from the review of "sottoscriverei," Simone Coacci.

I would specify that the Coacci to whom Blackdog refers should be the reviewer of Storia della Musica, if I’m not mistaken. The album is among my next listens; I’ll see what tricks the scoundrel has pulled.

You know what I’ll say: you’re right, my words were reckless, but they are still impressions I have of an album that I know quite well by now, and which still leaves me unsatisfied. Perhaps the point where I went wrong was saying that the avant-garde must necessarily be spontaneous. Perhaps it is instead the desire to create something spontaneous that is much more programmed than anything else. In short, maybe I got lost in words. I still don’t agree with you saying that I haven’t understood the album, because I perfectly understand the significant meaning of the record; the fact is that even though I’m getting used to the album, it is one that perhaps will never suit my tastes, because I believe I have well-defined preferences by now. I admit that I was wrong in giving with that "nothing" (I don’t remember in which post) very few merits to Beefheart's work. It had its followers, but I still maintain that significant strides were made even before TMR (and I believe we agree on this). I just got confused distinguishing between music and the way of making music, but it’s also true that it is the abstract and modern meaning of the album that has paved the way for new ways of conceiving rock, not so much the music, the rhythms, the melodies, which in the album, indeed, only count conceptually. That’s why in the end I acknowledge its importance, but I don’t enjoy listening to it because it irritates me, it bothers me, it even annoys me, not because I don’t understand it. I like those who try to combine musicality and meaning.

Violet Hill ska-blues??? Strawberry Swing afro? Piano with imagination, huh.

Then what interest? The first time in the attack of "Frownland," I nearly vomited my cereal.

@47: actually, what I know about Beefheart is Trout Mask Replica, and I have my opinion about it, also because, being a fairly esteemed and controversial album, it’s not like I just discovered it yesterday, eh (it’s hard not to know it for any music enthusiast). Musically, I find the album terrible, except for a few tracks. It’s not that I want to march on the fact that it’s unlistenable; it is listenable, but I find it disgusting to do so. If you want, I can even name the tracks I like, but overall, it remains an album that I don’t like. The tracks I like just happen to be the ones that are catchier and manage to suggest something to me: "Dachau Blues," "Ella Guru" (supersoul mentioned Waits, and that's true; in Waits, there is either the spirit of Beefheart, and these two tracks demonstrate it), "Moonlight in Vermont," "Veteran's Day Poppy," "Sugar 'n Spikes." Then? Not much else, this is what I appreciate, and everything you said about the symbolic significance are things I've heard many times and understand perfectly. But I don’t want to nitpick the (very deep) meaning of the album; I just don’t like it, and personally, I think it’s more Beefheart's modus operandi that has influenced the music, rather than the album itself, which, I reiterate, I like very little. Remember that this is my opinion, but so is yours. Don’t come at me with judgments because the symbolic significance of the album is old news now, and I wasn’t born yesterday.

The only thing I know about what you mentioned are Pere Ubu, who for me share something with the Captain in the way they make music. And yes, luckily a kid from '92 comes to explain it to Piero, and fortunately it's not just Piero who's got the head for it. RiNotte.

@47: so what? what do you want? what should I tell you? go have a marathon listening session of Trout Mask Replica if you feel like it and if you enjoy it, I for now prefer to leave it where it is, maybe in some distant future I’ll try to give it a listen. I think I've explained how I feel about it, just saying "I disagree" is enough, attacking is useless, instead try to think not so much about what you say (which could be interesting), but about how you say it. I'm going to bed because I need to catch up on some sleep. Night.

In my opinion, Beefheart's music was not influential; it’s the way Beefheart approached music that perhaps had some (and I say some) influence on those who came after. And among them are precisely the Royal Trux; it's quite clear. In my view, this way of making music is a fucking forced effort, alright? Whether you like it or not, to me it remains a forced effort, it’s just proof that sometimes a man, in his constructions, fucks himself over. It’s merely limited genius that cannot free itself from the stubbornness of wanting to create something flashy, something controversial, something exclusively symbolic, but in the end, it’s not very pleasant to listen to. As far as I'm concerned, Zappa has nothing to do with this and he didn't limit himself to mere innovation for its own sake (and music is full of that). And although Zappa had a hand in Beefheart’s work, it’s different music, even though it remains "avant-garde" music.

Damn, read the posts instead of blowing words out of proportion, and do 2 + 2 especially, maybe by having a discussion. And please don’t say that it’s all just mental masturbation, damn it, we have a brain, fortunately.