bogusman

To the anonymous person who is surprised that I critique this album harshly, while I positively review both Battisti (with Panella) and Bowie's Outside, I apologize if I disrupted the boxes in the scheme they had in mind regarding "what-should-please-someone-who-cri tiques-the-wall"...

damn, I've lost count...
Partial response to Hal: Perhaps the reason for its great success lies in the immediacy and ease with which it presents certain grand themes. The tone is also passionate enough to foster identification mechanisms that resonate well with the general public. This wouldn't necessarily be a downside if there weren't an unbearable pretentiousness behind every note. (at least in my opinion)
Whether Gilmour's presence is massive or not, the result is a sound that is much more domesticated compared to the (distant) past, which it’s reasonable to struggle to let go of. Especially considering how Gilmour had been harsh and dissonant in the good old days of Ummagumma (I know, in the end they are records from two different bands…).

Thank you, zigghio, for the "more information" link, but it seems to me that that article/interview had already appeared in a well-known quarterly that I won’t name. If you think the album is so MITIC, that’s fine, no problem (is it allowed to disagree?). Comparing Waters' vision to the work of a Sartre who had a completely different depth in the 30s and 40s... doesn’t that seem a bit excessive?

reference to barret: I have always seen the constant references to the crazy diamond as tear-jerking pandering to the audience, ready to pull out their lighters as soon as WYWH starts. I don't know, but for me that doesn't mean having artistically processed a ghost, it's not even romanticism; I see it as a form of cynical self-exoneration. “How I wish you were here” and all those good feelings… it seems a bit easy as a little game, doesn’t it?

Alexander, regarding "accozzaglie," take a look at my review of 1.outside by Bowie.

I used the term "mishmash" because it doesn’t seem to me that the overall musical composition is particularly coherent, nor does it appear to be the work of a particularly inspired pen: musically, it contains a bit of everything, and Waters doesn’t seem talented enough to handle such a complex structure. And of course, I can’t stand him, his egocentrism, his whiny voice, and his conviction that what he is doing is an absolute masterpiece.

It's a bit difficult to respond to everyone, and I'll try to do so with (dis)order. I never said I wrote nonsense. I reiterate that this is one of the most overrated albums in the history of rock. The historical context has to be understood, okay, and I'm sorry I didn't study in England. Personal obsessions can be expressed in different ways, and Waters does it in a way that is at least rhetorical and pompous. When you consider that we're in 1979 (hence the parallel with the new waves), it gives the impression that the influences taken from current events are the most profitable and sycophantic. If there are a couple of nice songs inside, having to endure all the manure that surrounds them seems a bit too much. The tyranny of Waters weighs heavily, especially when you think about how previous albums were the result of a group's creativity, while in this one, I see very little collective creativity.

Thank you, psychopompe, it's nice to receive compliments. Aren't you saying anything about the mess happening on the wall? :-)

wow, I didn't know that Pierre Moerlen had died...

but even angel's egg isn't bad. of course camembert electrique is better. cold reception? I know, I realized it afterward, it deserved a bit more enthusiasm. maybe I was busy writing the one about The Wall... but it was worth it, considering the chaos coming from the comments! ;-)