jack daniel's

how funny LARROK and LUX are, accusing others of being void of content, of stating the obvious, etc., but then where is this list of objective and universally recognized parameters with which to evaluate the quality of an album? In short, LUX, you say my comment is contentless, okay, then give me an example and explain why this is a bad album, tell me what the instruments are, the parameters, the yardstick you use to arrive at the conclusion that this is a bad album, because until you list the key points of the evaluation method, we’re at a standstill, and all your ramblings as an amateur critic ultimately boil down to a "de gustibus," the same applies to Larrok who wants the reasons that would prove this is a good album, but at the same time is unable to provide any reasoning that would demonstrate the contrary. I quote PIXIES77. That said, for me there are dozens of bands better than Queen, but hearing them compared to Cristina Aguilera, Backstreet Boys, Take That, etc., doesn’t make me laugh, it just gives me the awareness of how much ignorance lies behind pretentiousness.

better Frank Zappa than Lino Banfi, right muffinman?

big daddy!!!

@ LUX "one of the most insignificant works of the '80s." For you? Or for someone else? Or for your neighbor? Or for your butcher? Lux, stop making those damn generalizations, what would the supposed qualitative parameters be for evaluating a record? Give me a list, and then we can discuss it, what do you think? That there are people who say Queen are shit is legitimate, it's part of the game, it's fun, and that's the beauty of debaser, I do it too with musicians I can't stand, but trying to objectively prove that this is better than that is sheer arrogance. Simply put, it's impossible; the dumbest idiot can't do it, and neither can the most esteemed critic. Music is primarily communication, and its artistic value primarily depends on what it manages to convey, and what it manages to convey varies from person to person.

Or maybe, simply, as musicians, they realized that composing a three-minute tune with a melody that sticks in your head isn't as easy as it might seem. I’ll tell you, you’re one of those who has already understood everything, congrats on the show.

Hey dad, why didn't you tell me you were here too? I would have come to say hi earlier.

ALCOHOL, I adore you, but where have you been? I finally found you, dad!

Now, I’ll say this, and then you can think what you want: before Queen, the English had (in their own home) The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Cream, Free, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Yes, and many others, just to name a few illustrious bands that preceded Queen. So I don’t think one can say that the English are ignorant about rock or music, yet they love Queen to madness; they are perhaps the most beloved band across the Channel, even before Freddie’s death. Most musicians from those years, from David Bowie to Rod Stewart, from Ozzy Osbourne to Roger Daltrey, recognize an undeniable musical value in Queen. In Italy, however, we are divided between those who got to know Queen only after Freddie's death and have idolized them as if they were the Madonna, and those who hate them because Freddie was gay, or because they had a look that was, let's say, not very rock. Between the mid-70s and the mid-80s, Queen was the most sought-after and desired band by rock event organizers, even more than The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd. Until the early 80s, they were also highly regarded in the States, where the albums "News of the World" and "The Game" were very successful. Then they did that farce with the video for "I Want to Break Free"; American MTV censored them, and they basically closed the chapter with the US. The critics have always treated them poorly, and they’ve always responded to critics in kind. I consider them much more alternative than one might imagine; it’s true they sold out with chart-topping pop-rock, but one thing is certain: they never kissed the critics' asses for favorable treatment.

STONEY, the fact is that in my opinion it’s not the phrase itself that should be condemned. One can be outraged by the terms "pervert" and "invert," okay, but the subtlety, and the serious issue, is that delorenzo wants to portray those behaviors as communist, and that is not true at all. Communism concerns material goods, not sentimental bonds, and I have never encountered a communist happy to share his woman with others. Also, when I say "my woman," it’s just for convenience of expression, not because I consider my woman my property or keep her chained. For me, she’s free to be with another man, but if she does, she’s no longer my woman, and that wouldn’t please me at all. If you, Stoney, like to act hypocritical or like a false moralist, go ahead; as the proverb says, it’s easy to be rich... with other people's asses. The point is that delorenzo wants to make it seem like communists are happy to have a wife who’s a slut, or that Marx’s worldview was that of a big whorehouse, which is where delorenzo is being a sly bastard, and that’s why he deserves a 1. And also because he writes crap.

But Giuliano Gemma was really quite a heartthrob when he was young, don't you think?