bowie&barrett

ah ah ah ah sorry for interrupting; don't get mad! you are a blast... :-)

uhm... I don't know, but...?? what do you all think? I read the concert reviews (all those on DeBaser: I have nothing against Armando Greco in general, but somewhere you have to start) and I see: 1) they're all rated 5/5 2) with the following structure: I went, the lights went on, they played, I went home. so what? did you actually have anything to say about the concert? (I'm talking about everyone, okay? It's not just Armando I'm taking issue with, for goodness' sake!).

Giov, above all, thank you. Thank you for reviewing this record. Rather, THE RECORD. Without the business in between. Just the art. And the light. Barrett is the reason I play and write songs.

...uhm... Scaruffi. By the way, I and all the David Bowie fans alongside me have an open (and costly) account with that son of a bitch. But anyway... it's not a problem, Beppe. Scaruffi indeed falls into the group of those who don't like Queen, but he has correctly placed the band within the right genre. Queen rode two trends: hard rock and glam rock (regarding the former, I still have serious doubts). The real issue, the big short circuit concerning Queen, is that most people don't see the band's affiliation with the latter trend. The merit of your review was to have (in a small measure, you're not God, I know!) dusted off a great classic of pop music. But you see: it's not about convincing those who hate them that they are wrong, making amends, and starting to love them. The true purpose of a review is to explain an album, regardless of whether one likes it or not, by reestablishing the correct boundaries. And that's what you did, which is why I liked it. I always read a series of absurd comparisons on this site between Brian May and the greatest hard rock guitarists in history. No, it needs to stop: Brian May is a glam guitarist, closer to Mick Ronson than he is to Jimmy Page. That comparison is nonsense. Once a band is placed in a genre (in this case, Queen in glam; but the same goes for all), their work can be judged correctly. Then, if they aren't liked, amen. Scaruffi: he knows how to critique. That's for sure. He has terrible taste. And that's just as certain.

"Mc Cartney," sorry

no no you're right! "Flowers In The Dirt" is and remains McCartney's best album, full of inspiration and feeling; a perfect balance between melodic music and easy listening. With great respect, for the first time, for the Beatles tradition, of which McCartney felt (obviously) the forefather without however indulging in it. An extraordinary collaboration with MacManus (read Elvis Costello) deserves mentioning, which, while not reviving the glories of Lennon/McCartney, remains overwhelming. It will be echoed in another extraordinary song: "So Like Candy." "Flowers...." was the album with which I first approached McCartney and company, lifting the ideological salami slices that I had over my eyes. That said, no one will divert me from the idea that, for almost his entire career, McCartney has instead based his musical commitment on the lines of a "due" respect and admiration: after all, success is based on myth-making, not always - indeed, almost never - on truly intrinsic merits. It is therefore with great anger, fully aware of the difficulty with which so many unknown bands strive every day to make their voices heard, that I and many others contribute as we can by shouting at these gentlemen: "Fuck you!". Fuck you, your useless records, the enormous promotional machinery that fills your overflowing wallets, fuck the music to be listened to for cultural institution rather than for personal pleasure. Then, I repeat, if you like it, listen to it; if it makes you happy, even better! and all the more reason, because you listen to it for the right reasons. I reiterate: 5 for the review.

I slightly adjust my stance on FKAM: "A Night at the Opera an unrepeatable album" in the Glam Rock genre. Beware, because there are masterpieces out there!! And many that are far superior to this one. The opera cannot be defined as the best or the most important in light music, as it genetically presents itself as a grand experiment in genre blending that other artists had already interpreted and brought to great heights (David Bowie and his vision of Glam in Ziggy Stardust; Kiss in their playful and carefree reinterpretation of hard rock; Supertramp in their reimagining of progressive rock and its more symphonic aspects). "A Night at the Opera" finds its historical value precisely in the fact that it positioned itself at the center of this context, as a pleasant and pompous summation: it was based (but I could be wrong!) on the attempt to find a key of agreement among three genres (glam, progressive, symphonic) that all sought to reinterpret the great previous rock era, but which were then in stark opposition to one another. The attempt can be deemed successful, and based on this the album can be seen - limited to the moment it was released - as the pinnacle of the three genres. An UNFORGETTABLE album, for sure.

Yes, Marco, you're right; calling Hot Space "shit" would be an unforgivable misunderstanding. However, it doesn't seem to me that Andrea did that. Hot Space deserves an extra point in the judgment. As for the rest, okay.

Hi Beppe, good review. There's just one thing I don’t understand: you write, "one of the most underrated rock works in history." In what sense? Underrated by whom? By music critics? Of course, I'm not undertaking any PhD on the subject, but in thirty years, I don’t remember reading any negative reviews of the first three Queen albums. Rather, I've read a FEW, and while they lacked enthusiastic praise, they were overall positive. Queen, Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack are good products, where four skilled musicians provide an interesting reinterpretation of glam rock in light of the richness of progressive (which at that time was in its golden age). This, as far as I know, is generally acknowledged by critics. Ah, but maybe you were referring to those who demonize Queen on DeBaser: well, they fall into two categories: people who don’t like Queen (a perfectly legitimate position) and people who call them a "technically incompetent" group in the rock landscape. I believe Queen deserve to be defended from this perspective: too often (and here the blame lies with all the fans who shout to the four winds "the greatest live rock band" and other similar nonsense) they are subjected to relentless comparisons with a series of hard rock groups (AC DC, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin). The comparison is unfair: it's true that at times May's guitar nods to Jimmy Page, but Queen don't fall into the hard rock genre, nor did they intend to throughout their career. They are a Glam Rock band, and the correct comparison to make is rather with groups like T-Rex, early David Bowie, Kiss, Def Leppard regarding the harder side, Supertramp, Electric Light Orchestra, Al Stewart, and even Elton John for the more melodic side. Now, if the glam rock formula they adopted disgusts metal enthusiasts, that's a legitimate opinion, as long as they don't judge them based on incorrect comparisons. Rather, if we closely analyze their discography, we will notice how Queen never focused on a single specific style, but instead rode the most varied sound solutions, in a project (sometimes successful, sometimes less so) of convergence between the trends of each period. An approach to music that is self-ironic and typically Glam. We thus have the first three albums (hard rock, glam, progressive), A Night/A Day (symphonic rock, glam, cabaret), News-Jazz-Game-Hot (rock n roll, glam, disco) Works-Magic-Miracle (glam, pop). Even Innuendo is configured in light of the reinterpretation of the period in which it was released (hard rock, glam, progressive). But I repeat: to understand Queen well, and therefore to appreciate or despise them, one must always keep in mind that they are a glam group. I read, for example, in '91, I can’t remember where, that Richards (producer of "Innuendo") had devised a new way of singing for Mercury, close to that of Ian Gillan. Apart from the fact that the statement speaks for itself... from the first listen, the hardest tracks on Innuendo did not evoke Deep Purple for me at all, but rather Bowie’s Ziggy Stardust (for example, Headlong is a pompous version of "The Jean Genie" or "Hang onto Yourself"; at the time, "Don't Stop Me Now" reminded me of "Suffragette City," "Play the Game," and "It's A Hard Life" recalled "Life on Mars?"). The duet Mercury/Bowie in "Under Pressure" was far from a casual event. Obviously, I wouldn't dare say that Mercury copied Bowie!!! I'm just trying to reintegrate Queen into the right compartment of music history. Keeping in mind that these compartments are not airtight.

Dario, were you referring to me? In fact, I appreciate Morgan, both as a musician and as a songwriter; I don't find him innovative, but with Bluvertigo he did a more than decent job. "Canzoni dell'appartamento" is a good album, and I've even mentioned it in the comments on the review. I sincerely wish him not to lose the spark with which he makes music, even though he has always been suspended in a limbo, halfway between timid experimentation and an enormous, almost... "guilty" debt to his idols (Bowie, Battiato). It's as if for every note played, he stops to thank and reminds everyone where he drew from. A morally unassailable attitude, but frankly, it clips his wings.
It's likely that this reinterpretation of De André is done with heart and mind (how many cover bands exist? how many people have picked up a guitar driven by passion or swept away by the genius of an artist?), but I fear it could backfire on him. For two reasons. First: unlike many musicians who play others' music, Morgan has a record deal; every step he takes is under the spotlight. In this, he can also show courage. Second: the strategy of a philological reinterpretation of an artist or a genre has claimed many victims over time (among the most notable, Lenny Kravitz). The general public needs "new heroes," even if they're contrived, more than devotees of the past. Rather than a reinterpretation, people either prefer the originals (even if deceased, as in the case of Mercury) or look to new trends (often fleeting). I wish Morgan well, but I remain horrified (De André is too great; I already know he will fail: still, I promise to listen) and worried. His approach to music is a boomerang.