ajejebrazorf

But it's not true, one is free to listen to whatever they prefer, of course. But if someone comes to me, knowing that I listen to a lot of other things without blinders, and talks about the great superiority of prog (that is, first they mentioned a band like Alphataurus, who sing things like: "ritorno al mio paeseah soloah e a soffrir" (suffering, damn it, not "soffrire", "soffrir", "who do you think we are with our hair that we wear, a sense of ridicule equals") "non vedoh la mia genteihle stradeih son deserteahmi guardo intornoh sento la vitah che se nei vah"), should I say they're as good as Van der Graaf or Michael Mantler? No, they suck, not even that— they are mediocre, which is even worse. It's not about hating a genre.

Annoying, isn't it? On a review site, you comment. One person says "inaccuracies" (let's put it this way, softly), theorizing about an entire decade (and there were still plenty of genres to mention), and on other things that don't matter to get into, and I'm the annoying one? And why isn't it annoying for someone to come in and spew nonsense for free about things they don't know? Then, I don't know who put it in your head that I hate progressive music. I actually like a lot of progressive stuff, some less so, and some I can't stand, just like everyone else with other genres (in fact, I enjoy many more prog bands than punk ones, for example). I'm not a fanatic like the user from progarchives who sees masterpieces everywhere, that's for sure, and I prefer certain lesser-known bands to classics like Genesis and Yes, which I also like quite a bit, not out of snobbery but because of my own taste. I’d be curious to know where you got this thesis about me despising the genre.

Anyway, isn't it a bit pathetic, not just making fake accounts, but doing so by taking and copying word for word the lines of others, in the case of the illustrious comrade GUGLIELMO EPIFANI? A bit of originality, for God's sake.

Dr. Keit Emerson, you should think about the hatred you have towards the genre, considering that you don't even acknowledge the progressive groups among those I mentioned. Shame on you.

The low fi sound is quite hard to support, it's tough to argue that garage or stoner is polished. The Genesis are polished, which means what? The Pink Floyd of Dark Side or Wish You Were Here. Another nonsense.

the alphataurus, sin of pride and the singer who inspired pierò pelù for the open vowels... anyway, I challenge you to find points of contact between: kyuss, labradford, don caballero, new bomb turks, gories, spring heel jack, plastikman, phish, smashing pumpkins, add n to (x), Roy montgomery, primus, red house painters, today is the day, sunnO))), steve roach, black tape for a blue girl, blur, dirty three, morphine, supreme dicks, acid mother temple, masonna, dogbowl. I mean, distant universes.

Yes, but what do the charts mean? Because don't you think that a lot of people who followed the various trends of the moment, whether they were hippies, punks, goths, or whatever, didn't do it for fashion? As a listener, what do you care? If in the 60s-70s there was music of greater quality on the charts, it was because there was a different cultural climate that inevitably influenced fashion: it was fashionable to listen to a certain type of rock. Or do you think that all those who listened to Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd were just refined enthusiasts? I mean, the charts mean nothing; if someone is passionate about Mika or Hilary Duff, they couldn't care less, I don't understand the equations. Then you go back to generalizing: in the '90s, there was a movement like post-rock, which took the progressive discourse in a more elegant and cool way. There was math rock, which was a technical exaggeration of that discourse, from King Crimson's "Red" and minimalism. There was a blues movement. Huge pop groups and great psychedelic musicians, fantastic progressive bands. Excellent singer-songwriters, both lo-fi and not. There was shoegaze. There was drum'n'bass (and there are some really badass musicians doing it, yes, musicians, not just knob twiddlers), there was minimal techno. There were quite a few new things in metal, there was stoner music. There was an explosion of gothic music, which had been pretty much stagnant since Nico. There was garage, there was the avant-garde, and there was also grunge. And really, a lot of other stuff that's all different. How the hell can you come up with a theory that applies to everything? "More standard" of what?

Both the 80s and 90s produced works that are clearly better than Grace, which for me is a good album but nothing extraordinary (and I loved it at the time).

Charts don't mean a damn thing. If you tell me that in the '70s the music was generally better, I agree; if you say that the '70s were the decade that produced the best stuff, I probably still agree. But if you say that the '90s suck and there are no bands that can actually play (in a decade), it means you know nothing about that decade, and there's little room for theorizing. And then you talk about "exceptions": but why, do you think Robert Wyatt or Tim Buckley or Neu! or Popol Vuh weren't exceptions? What does it mean that a big audience or a small one knows you, can you explain that to me? And apart from that, there have been countless genres (and technically skilled bands, which doesn't mean much but you care a lot about) out there. For every endless sea of crap you talk about (which was also present in the '60s and '70s), there’s an endless sea of valid music. The extreme case is the '80s: absolute crap in the charts, stunning music underground. Should we really look at the charts to sum things up? Because it seems to me that you're making that argument: since cooler stuff made it onto the charts, THEREFORE it was generally a musically more valid decade. No, that's a mistake.

The incredible thing is that people who don't know what they're talking about continue to blow their trumpets. Damn, it's like if I allowed myself to talk about reggae. I know five reggae albums at most, I keep my mouth shut; at most, I say that what I've heard isn't really my music, but I avoid preaching about it. Wouldn't the world be better if everyone did the same? Now, how the hell can someone say that "in the '90s, there are no technical bands"? Damn it, ignorance is a nasty beast.