ajejebrazorf

A review that matches in the number of blunders the one about Velvet. First of all: Guccini and Bertoncelli had a clarifying meeting, during which Guccini stated that he would remove the incriminated line, and Bertoncelli refused. They became great friends. Second: Guccini has never disowned the album; he says it's the one he feels the least connected to, but specifies that it's tied to the nonsense of Pierfarri. Third: the "typical leftist anguish" is a bullshit beyond all human imagination, so are The Velvet Underground leftist? Does one just need to write a distressing/sad/depressing song to be considered leftist? What are you talking about? Some of the songs where you mention thematic aphasia and that you define as "sludge" are for me (and for many others) among the best of Guccini's repertoire, with some of his finest verses. "Canzone per Piero" (for instance) is splendid (a few years ago it was a topic for a high school graduation essay). And to be frank, Bertoncelli (an excellent critic, no doubt) is not even the Bible. And then the supreme subject of your review: it would have been an excellent example of Italian singer-songwriter if it were less "depressing," and instead it is "a non-violent incitement towards the brink of depression." Right, indeed, the first Suicide would have been a great record if it had been a bit cheerier. And so would have The Velvet. That said, for me, it remains one of Guccini's four or five best albums.

In classic prog, I definitely prefer among the great names the King Crimson and Van der Graaf, and among the less famous names groups like Hatfield and the North or Phish, not to mention Canterbury (including the Hatfields) and various contaminations, but there are those who don't really see them as progressive. Let's be clear, I don't love them, but I certainly don't despise them: they are an excellent band, even though, contrary to many, I have never considered them geniuses, and none of their albums seems to me (as refined as they are) a masterpiece. But I do happen to listen to them with pleasure, you know.

I don't know, she's improved a lot in singing and the album is much better (and much more ambitious) than the first one, but in many parts I find it unnecessarily long. There are beautiful melodies, it's very well-crafted, a stunning array of collaborators, but I don't know how well it holds up over time.

hiver, if you're interested at least I have the mp3s of the second one. I'm looking for something by the black sun ensemble, does anyone know them?

Yes, but what does a relative technical progress mean? I can't compare the technique of an '80s band with that of a '70s band just because what was difficult back then is now considered easier? Well, why don't you play the pieces of Allan Holdsworth, in 2006? Or just because guitar technique has evolved, is it now considered not-so-technical anymore? But all this talk about the incomparability of technique is just to avoid admitting that there are punk bands that outperform many prog bands?

no way it's a habit, the germs were just strays, forget about context. Malmsteen had a superior technique PERIOD, what does context have to do with it.

Well, if we can't even compare the technique, then how can we say that Malmsteen has more technique than the guitarist from the Germs? Also, the fact that Fripp doesn't make a fuss is not necessarily a derogatory thing (on the contrary, for me it speaks in his favor, as he prefers composition to performance); it is just a simple fact.

Well, the minutemen may not be strategic (but much is), but neither is a prog group like Le Orme exactly strategic; in fact, if I had to make the comparison... Genesis are good musicians, but I've never heard Hackett do anything mind-blowing (okay, I admit, I only know five or six albums). Fripp is great, but he hasn't exactly made technical explosions either. Rip Rig and Panic, a descendant of The Pop Group (a punk band), however, is technically frightening. In hardcore, apart from the widely acclaimed Jesus Lizard (the guitarist graduated in flamenco), there are a ton of bands with incredible technical skills, especially in jazzcore, where many bands put a lot of prog to shame. For me, definitions like that mean very little, if anything at all. Instead, here you just say "it's punk" and then ah, three chords/no playing, if it's said to be prog immediately "it's masturbatory." While there may be some truth to that, there are so many exceptions that establishing the rule and creating theories that go beyond the general line is pretty much nonsense.

uniquely punk? but what does it mean? are you really able to perfectly define genres like that? alright, Genesis play progressive. And do Henry Cow play progressive? And the Pop Group plays punk, new wave, free jazz, what? it’s clear that definitions only convey an attitude, not the reality. Aside from that, the term punk means nothing, aside from a certain mindset. The Pop Group, to stick with that example, is still considered a punk band, despite the influences. It's not like if there are influences or they take a technically difficult turn you blow the whistle and the band is no longer punk.

"Punk, which by definition is NOT a technical genre, and the moment it becomes one is no longer just punk," one could argue something, but let's take this statement at face value: the fact that punk is a genre that rejects technique as essential does not mean that the musicians who perform it do not necessarily know how to play or are limited, and that if they do play, they do so because they want to be clever or something like that. What surprises me, amidst all the schematizations, is that punk is always portrayed as the music of those who don't understand music, and never, for example, the blues, or much singer-songwriter music (nobody ever mentions Bob Dylan, yet he sang as he sang and tortured the guitar in a rough way), or a lot of rap, three genres where music serves a different function.