puntiniCAZpuntini

Ossian, Adrian Maben didn't recycle an old work; he gifted us a masterpiece. But come on, how does the old VHS with its terrible sound compare to the DVD in Dolby Surround that implodes in your living room, reviving the suppressed echoes of the conservatory of g__à? Anyway, they would have released the DVD regardless, and since they were at it, for a mere 12¤ they even remixed the audio and improved the visuals. And if you want, you can also watch the original version. Of course, he did it for money; it's his job... do you go to work just for the glory of hearing your boss say, "Well done, kid!"?

However, I have to mention one thing: I believe that in 50 or more years, modern music will also be studied. Sooner or later, the day will come when your little grandson at the conservatory will ask you, "Grandpa, can you help me study Toni Iommi?" And of course, Beethoven will still be studied; that goes without saying. But in the end, it all comes down to personal tastes, there are no objective facts to hold onto; it’s all nonsense.

Useless mental gymnastics. The one shooting down is you, who classify, I have done anything but shoot down, quite the opposite: I couldn't care less about classifying seriously. If it gets messy and we end up in a full-blown mental gymnastics discussion knowing that it is, then so be it, and we can share a laugh. But a serious discussion about music, for me, does not exist. Anyway, all the thousands of C notes you produce with a classical instrument, when inserted into a technological sound processor, multiply until you reach tens of millions of C notes. Of course, classical music has a variety of timbres (given that I now also know what it’s called :D) but with technological instruments, you can do more. With a technological instrument, you can redo classical things and expand on them; with a classical one, you can only do classical things—there may be billions of them, but there are fewer than what you can produce with technology. And all this, I re-emphasize, is worth jack shit. There is no better or worse, just "I like it, I don't like it." The argument you make of "this is better than that," to me, is bullshit. There is no better or worse; the effect a sound has cannot be valued objectively since everyone hears it with different ears, different brains, different cultures, and different tastes. We are not all the same, and everything cannot be planned out. It’s just useless mental gymnastics. Classical music stimulates me little. Is it their fault? No. Is it my fault? Not at all. Who cares? Not me, that's for sure. :D Then you can certainly say who has been more influential than whom... but those are other mental gymnastics that have little to do with listening to a CD. I don't listen to good music, I listen to what I like; you know how much I care about objectively classifying it into an absolute value.

Electronics I say, modulations of the same note extended and modified. Knobs, buttons, etc. the classic piano you press a key and it goes "pin". Then you press it again and keep it held down, it will always say "pin". The electric piano you press a key and it goes "pin," you hold it down and it goes "piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin ," then you start to play around and it will make "piiiooooùùùnnweeeooonnnwwiooonnn". :D

Come on Enea, the absolute scale of values is one of the most useless mental gymnastics of humankind: a single accordion chord that may seem beautiful to you can repulse me while I might enjoy another chord that you find awful. There are sounds that give chills to some and others that don't; it’s impossible to assign a serious value. We can debate and bicker, but to speak seriously about the actual value of two different contexts is impossible. It’s like trying to determine whether Michael Jordan or Pelé is better; they played two different sports, each a champion in their own right, and there are even those who despise both soccer and basketball and consider Chichunlai, the champion of Ping Pong, the greatest athlete on the planet. Absolute values are just mental gymnastics; for instance, I prefer the sounds of notes. A classical pianist will never appeal to me like Herbie Hancock will, simply because the classical pianist doesn’t have modulations; it’s not their fault, just as it’s not Herbie’s merit.

Now tell me, if you give a 4 to this, what Psychedelic Film would you give a 5? Because a 5 has to be taken for granted, at least the most beautiful 5 must have it; if it's the most beautiful, it deserves the maximum without question. In my opinion, this is the most beautiful.

One cannot seriously talk about music; it would just lead to a heap of bullshit. There is no good music; you can't say that soul is better than metal, nor that rap is better than classical... it's all nonsense. Value scales? Nonsense. You can compare albums created with the same purpose, and that's it. You can say that one Hard Rock album seems better than another Hard Rock album because they have comparable terms and other similar examples; the rest is all bullshit. Art has no value scales; you can only do mental gymnastics about it, which is exactly what they are and will always remain. Classical music lacks sound variety; there are rivers of notes flowing but no variety in sound. The double bass C always sounds like a double bass C. A double bass C affected in one way sounds different from a double bass C affected in another way. Anyway, there’s no such thing as better or worse; it's all bullshit. The idea that Beethoven is better than Metallica is nonsense; they are not comparable. One may prefer one or the other or both, but they cannot be compared. Mandatory references are other nonsense; it's not Metallica's fault they were born 200 years after Beethoven. Maybe Kirk Hammett was born in the 1600s and would have become the best composer in history. Mental gymnastics, endless bullshit. This is the best psychedelic live performance available on the market; it has no rivals. Did Mozart ever do a psychedelic live show? No. So, on what basis do you calculate "true musical quality"? There is no "true" musical quality; it's all bullshit. Mozart composed orchestral pieces better than Pink Floyd, and Pink Floyd created sound compositions better than Mozart. One here and one there, none better than the other... it's all nonsense.

Oh well, but you like post-meddle melodic garbage. I forgot you had serious hearing problems, sorry. I won’t hold it against you anymore, I promise.

But then get the DVDs of the interviews, not the Live ones. Here they do interplanetary executions, they create a Saucersful Of Secrets that is completely different from the original and, in my opinion, also much better; the same goes for Patare for One Of These Days, which is way better than the Meddle version. They do a Careful With that’s heart-stopping... what do you care about the anecdotes? In the original version, there weren't even any anecdotes, it was just music.

In 2001, they added the "flying" shots of the prairies and the volcanoes made with 3D animation. In the DVD version, if you go to the menu, there's the option to see the version that circulated in '72; there are more shots of the band and fewer planets. They didn’t air the interviews from '72 (at least, that’s what the director narrates in the preface) because the Floyd were just messing around and it wasn’t appropriate. Enea, how can you give a 4 to the first project that combines music and images for more than 3 minutes? Just for the innovation it brought, it deserves a 5; whether it’s magnificent is subjective, but the fact that it’s innovatively frightening is objective, so 5 by default. From today, I no longer greet you. Actually, I’ve already stopped, so now I’m not greeting you. There you go. And then Enea, I’m at the Emi cafeteria, not at the restaurant, tièh (but the tièh doesn’t count as a greeting, because as I said before, I’ve taken that away from you, right?)