bowie&barrett

...you need a lot of toilet paper, sylvian, a lot of toilet paper...
...I wouldn't dare suggest you listen to "Blood on the Tracks" by Bob Dylan because, if you find this crap great, you might literally have a collapse in comparison... actually, you know what? Go ahead and listen to it instead :-) remember that these acoustic operations from the Boss (?) serve: 1) to rest the vocal cords (but it doesn’t help at all, he still remains a howling beaten dog)
2) to periodically give himself a new face after the usual sea of c@g@te he dishes out with the other beaten dogs (Clarence Clemmons excluded) of the E-Street Band.
Every 5 years, regularly, he makes an acoustic little record, homemade demo stuff, worthy of any, I repeat, any more inspired and motivated (and talented) teenager than him.
In the little record, he mumbles the usual clichés, sung with pathetic enthusiasm (it doesn't make you vomit, it simply makes you laugh...) over the (shaky) basis of ridiculously banal little chord progressions, winking at his beloved (?) Dylan (let's skip the painful comparisons...).
If Bruce started making music inspired by Dylan, maybe it all began with this track:
"Idiot wind
blowing everytime you move your mouth (...)
blowing everytime you move your teeth
you're a idiot, babe
it's a wonder that you still know how to breathe"
...exactly.

...personally, I consider Baglioni a pathetic character (pay attention: I didn't say a "pathetic man") and I say this not to tear him down for no reason, but precisely because I believe he is a great talent wasted. It’s incredible to think about what he could have become over time, had he made bolder choices (those who dare to talk to me about "experimentation" in his albums from the '90s to today are getting a beating... :-). To get an idea of the character's potential, just listen to "Ragazze dell’Est" or "Solo". To drastically downsize him, everything else... Those who adore him have their good reasons, but be careful not to confuse the feelings or life experiences evoked by the words of his songs with the intrinsic value of his (alleged) art.

Essential album. Just a clarification: it was produced by Tony Visconti (Bowie's historic producer), while Eno's contribution (although considerable) is limited to some arrangements and the song Warszawa. The Bowie-Eno partnership will become more solid in the following "Heroes." Anyway, well done (or well done? but who cares...) :-)

Hi, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, but I just wanted to remind the "experts" that Queen is a GLAM-ROCK band. A pompous and baroque version of the same glam rock as T-Rex, with a "drop" of hard rock mediated by Led Zeppelin.
That's why many consider them and continue to consider them a fundamental group, even if in the hard rock field they are second (or third) to many others... simply because they are NOT an orthodox "hard rock" band. Period. Those who seek the pure and raw sound of AC/DC in May's guitar... well, it's like expecting pleasant easy listening from Frank Zappa.
They may not be to everyone's taste (and I, too, while appreciating Mercury's voice, tend to downplay them), but it must be acknowledged that Queen made music by riding a variety of genres while remaining consistent with their very personal musical project, a reinterpretation of glam-rock.
Cheers :-)

I connect to Raziel's comment (with whom I am not polemizing). Indeed, St. Anger is not a bad album; what leaves you disoriented at first listen is the fact that you have in your hands a product of excellent craftsmanship, difficult to classify, well-played, reasonably powerful for the genre it fits into, at times entertaining, long but interesting and not boring. You remain disoriented, as I said, because you are aware that the tracks on the CD were played and composed by Metallica, a band that both long-time fans and casual listeners likely have a very clear image of and, for the former, also specific expectations. Just like in the case of Gabriel's "Up" or at the time "Real Life" by Simple Minds, it is challenging to provide a judgment on such undertakings: it is not new that a band with many years of experience (despite the age of its members) seeks to give itself a new direction, so as not to be predictable. However, one must not fall into a trap: it might be necessary to separate the judgment on the external quality of the production (as it sounds on the album) from the importance and intrinsic beauty of the music (what is played on that album). In the case of St. Anger, reasoning in this way leads to considering the new songs insignificant in the broader landscape. And this, coming from a group like Metallica, which – like it or not – has objectively laid the paradigm foundations of a genre, is an unforgivable fault. Hence the judgment on the album.
Demon on the fall - as can be understood from the colorful language :-) - has truly grasped the real value of the album. I fully agree.

I’ll pick up on Raziel's comment (with which I’m not arguing). In fact, St. Anger is not a bad album; what leaves one disoriented upon first listening is the awareness that in hand one has a product of excellent craftsmanship, difficult to categorize, well-played, reasonably powerful for the genre it fits into, at times enjoyable, lengthy but interesting and not boring. One feels disoriented because there is the realization that it is the Metallica who played and composed the tracks of the CD, a band that both long-time fans and casual listeners have a clear image of, and concerning the former, also precise expectations.
Just like in the case of Gabriel's "Up," or in its time "Real Life" by Simple Minds, it is challenging to express a judgment on such endeavors: it's not new that a band with many years of experience behind them (despite the age of the members) seeks to give itself a new direction, so as not to be predictable. Yet one must not fall into a trap: perhaps one should separate the judgment on the external quality of the production (how the album sounds) from the importance and intrinsic beauty of the music (what is played on that album). In the case of St. Anger, reasoning in this way leads to considering the new songs insignificant in the broader landscape, and this, from a group like Metallica, who—like them or not—have objectively laid the paradigm foundations of a genre, is an unforgivable flaw. Hence the judgment on the album.

I remember an evening when my friends and I were discussing celebratory and/or self-celebratory releases like this one. In fact, we were pretty harsh about it, but what can I say, "Made In Heaven" hadn't been released yet (a beautifully crafted album in its own way but - as has already been said on these pages - also a bit necrophilic :-)
Returning to Bob and his voice... well, in fact, anyone who didn’t know he was still alive might jump out of their seat in terror, thinking of a zombie in person making an appearance during his own funeral! Poor Dylan suffers from "sclerosis" of the vocal cords, due to years and years of relentless touring, which bit by bit have taken away his voice, always used without restraint (just think of the memorable Rolling Thunder Review).
In reality, beyond the voice, Dylan delivers a breathtaking performance of one of his greatest hits during concerts. A song definitely less famous, predictable, and anthological than everything else heard that evening. A piece capable of giving the event everything it was missing: a real, lively, heartfelt live dimension! :-) Great Bob.