brusko

I only know the first of the Skid, Review as usual impeccable!

I know that the album of the year is supposed to be released on April 10th... but maybe I’m wrong...

And this with all due respect for prog records, I consider the first King Crimson an absolute masterpiece, but rock is not just that.

ALEXANDER77, I'm not talking just for the sake of talking; I've expressed my opinion, whether it is shareable or not, it's still my opinion. I know that "popolare" and "populista" are not synonyms; I mentioned both simply because they are often interconnected and are considered negative by a certain "cultured" audience. Your idea of rock is partly mine as well, but I think when we say "rock," we're not referring to a single musical genre, but rather a collection of genres and subgenres that have emerged from the 1960s to today. From what I can gather from your comment 19, your idea of rock coincides with that late '60s, early '70s rock, undoubtedly a magical era for music. But that type of rock is not the only one. Also, the notion that the voice is not important in rock doesn't seem true to me because if a piece is instrumental, fine, who cares about the voice, but if there is singing, then it better be done well. Go tell Ian Gillan from MADE IN JAPAN that the voice isn't important in rock. Moreover, in the review you mentioned, I saw Springsteen compared to Britney Spears and that in rock, only guitar, bass, and drums matter. Again, go say that to Ray Manzarek or John Lord. If someone thinks the best form of rock is hard rock, or hard blues, or progressive, etc., that's fine with me, but if it's said that rock is only that, then they are mistaken. Who said that bass and drums have to be technical? Go tell Elvis or the Beatles that their music wasn't rock just because they didn't have technically skilled bassists and drummers. That prog may have driven away a certain audience from rock music is a fact; punk and disco music arose partly because working-class kids were fed up with all those classical and jazz virtuosos on records passed off as "rock."

Certainly a great album, but Automatic For The People remains the best for me. New Adventures in hi-fi is also excellent.

I agree with Marcos, to me Springsteen has been a great rocker; maybe he isn't anymore, but in the '70s and '80s he had incredible energy on stage. And why can't rock be popular or populist? Who said that rock has to be a niche genre and can't be aimed at the masses? In fact, the first rock & roll, that of the '50s and early '60s, was the quintessential mass genre. Then at some point, progressive music came along, and fuck everything. This doesn't mean I hate progressive music, but simply that it is the genre that has had the most responsibility in distancing rock from ordinary people. And from then on, the idea spread that rock was something cultured, to be listened to in cozy living rooms, perhaps while sipping tea. An elite genre meant for people who liked to play at being intellectuals. Well, fuck that, rock is street music, it's stage music, it's arena music, rock is about togetherness. Rock isn't a well-dressed kid with earbuds in his ears; rock is a dirty little rascal, someone who doesn't even know what being pretentious feels like, a kid who wants to live, live, and keep living, terribly pissed off at the world, but always generous and reaching out to others. That’s what rock is.

here it is

With that nickname, I can only give you 5! Let there be Roooooooooooooooock!

For me, a good live performance is 78 minutes of rock leaning towards hard, but not too much, with a certain element of catchy pop, though ultimately quite restrained. It's certainly not one of those live albums to hand down to future generations, but still, it seems like an excellent record.

For the mega belch at Scaruffi, I'm totally in favor, maybe even a mega fart at that whacky intellectual. Professional music critics (people paid to say whether they liked a record or not) make no sense at all, they’re just a big bluff.