El Guevo

I agree with you Socrates...everything else is boring!

Instead of criticizing the character, whom you probably don't even know, try to criticize the music if you are capable of it. The review attempts to do so, and some insights are great if they didn't fall into that nostalgic vortex that gratifies the reviewer and all those who think like him... but Nashira and Cleo, your explanations sound like they've come straight out of a Maria De Filippi show!

"...finally, it is always a profound pleasure to lose oneself in the depths of the voice, ever deeper, as the lyrics themselves become increasingly profound, transcending the dimension of the ballad narrative and reaching, unmediated, into existential reflection." Thank you for the beautiful and enlightening comment!

Sorry easy, only part of the comment is a response to yours; the other is a reply to psychopompe.

Easycure both Lou Reed and John Cale have always expressed their love for the Beatles and acknowledged their influence, even if in most of their songs (but not all!) this is not very visible. The Velvet Underground were influential from the very beginning; the fact that they didn’t achieve commercial success means nothing, musicians knew them since their first record... regarding the sitar, I didn't know that (feel free to mention names and dates... it's always nice to discover new things!). As for low-fi, it's not just a reference; it's actually a completely different approach to both composition and recording that shouldn't be viewed solely from a purely technical standpoint. In this sense, it's certain that McCartney's first records legitimized this "attitude"!

Music can be innovative but at the same time of poor quality; fortunately, this has never happened to the Beatles (Revolution No. 9 is, as you say, avant-garde, but being avant-garde is not synonymous with being innovative!). Harrison's album might be a bit clumsy, as you say, but that's a whole different story; here we are not talking about avant-garde but one of the first works of electronic music. The album was definitely innovative, pioneering, and very influential given everything that electronic music has produced over the years! Of course, it may or may not be to your taste, but I am not interested in that last aspect... as you say, it’s like the discussion of the influential and the innovative—it’s hot air!

Ezekiel, among the best covers, I would also include a beautiful version by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds of Here Comes The Sun.

The Beatles were innovators; there’s no doubt about it. I could mention the incorporation of instruments from other cultures or different music genres (of course, I won’t name them because any music lover should know!). Furthermore, and this is the most important thing, the very structure of their songs is a significant innovation (the one that changed music forever), and from this perspective, the Velvet Underground themselves are disciples (who certainly were more influential than innovative!). P.S. The Beatles, even in their solo careers, never stopped being innovators: Harrison's Wonderwall Music (1968) is one of the very first records of electronic music, and McCartney's early albums anticipated lo-fi, and we were only in 1970!... I can understand certain comments that may be influenced by personal tastes, but when discussing history, one must be a bit more careful because these are facts, certainly not opinions!