cappio al pollo

Let it go, you’re off track.

Well, I mentioned Tokio Hotel just to say that citing them wouldn't have made sense.

I was saying that Astral Weeks has little to do with rock 'n' roll "à la Elvis."

J&R, I personally really like Astral Weeks, certainly more than anything else Elvis has thrown our way, but let me say that it has absolutely nothing to do with rock 'n' roll, while still maintaining a rock approach.

Dizionariorock, if you read carefully, I gave you my opinion.

If there’s one thing Elvis was more than anything else, it was influential, because for the world, rock was him (and I partially agree with you, as we’ve established he wasn’t the only one, nor the best). Elvis was musically influential as well as a character (I’m referring precisely to mannerisms, clothing styles, etc.), because, as I mentioned earlier, unfortunately, he was the most recognized in his field. A good example are his bad Italian copies, Solo and Tony, who, in addition to taking on his appearance, were also musically inspired by him. Even Dylan and Mick Jagger, who were themselves as influential as the plague, took a lot from Elvis. However, I don’t think it’s appropriate to take their words (quoted by Giustiziere) as absolute truth. I only feel compelled to point out the musical overvaluation—because he wasn’t the only one; in fact, others played what is conventionally called rock 'n' roll better than he did, and some had been doing it before him—and, assuming rock would have arrived anyway, that of pop icon (the one that today here on debaser is so condemned).

But maybe, simply, creating a myth of that caliber would have been (as it indeed was) the only way to rapidly spread rock music. Who knows, whatever.

I don’t get it. What would this importance be? The only thing I know is that he was (and still is) not just a pop icon, but THE pop icon par excellence. I mean, exactly what you criticize in the bands and artists who today have global success. And it’s not about talent: obviously comparing Elvis's success to that of, I don’t know, Tokio Hotel, would be quite blasphemous and meaningless. But if we consider a talented band, with international fame and success like, for example, U2. Many would turn up their noses and have the worst things to say, probably precisely because of the issue of notoriety. So what is it? Did Elvis invent rock 'n' roll? Not at all; in my opinion, there is no specific event that leads us back to the birth of rock 'n' roll. Even in the rhythm 'n' blues of the early 1930s, you can perceive what just over a decade later we would recognize as rock 'n' roll. I find the myth of Elvis overrated – despite being a seminal artist and the catalyst for an extraordinary phenomenon without equal – and guilty of overshadowing everything else that was actually happening in those years. Today, maybe only three people know Bo Diddley; a Chuck Berry, who at the time already adopted perhaps sounds more relatable to the raw rock of our days, might not have the same (musical) merits as Elvis; an Ike Turner, probably the author of the first true rock 'n' roll record, is nobody. So maybe it’s time to dive deeper into Elvis's music, or are his real merits, beyond the overrated musical ones, just the galactic fame you despise so much today? And then why praise such a precursor only to disdain its derivatives? I doubt we would still be playing rhythm 'n' blues without Elvis. The excesses, in a broad sense and otherwise, that may have been the emblem of rock are human, as is the desire to renew oneself. Rock would have come anyway, right? I don’t understand.

First! I don't know the album, but he is extraordinary and conceived the immortal Astral Weeks. The minimal review is quite engaging and piques my curiosity. Good.

Good job. The ending comes as a bit of a surprise and summarizes the album and the review in three words.