psychopompe

Indeed easy....I agree with Hal. Those who appreciate the work of the Beatles are nonetheless open to a critical self-analysis. The same cannot be said for those who are Byrds fans. I don't find what you write in 5th Dimension. I find it to a greater extent in the Grateful Dead, for example. But that’s not the point, because making comparisons between the Byrds, Beach Boys, and Beatles is pointless. Given the English psychedelic groups you mention, you've probably noticed how the two sides share sometimes fairly similar foundations (the rock 'n' roll of the '50s) but are very different in other aspects. In America, there was the whole country tradition to explore, a return and a reworking of musical roots that didn't exist in England. I still don't understand the comparison of characteristics between such distant groups. Then you have to understand that it’s all very filtered by personal taste; I don’t go crazy for all the Beatles’ production, just as I can’t say that the first Blossom Toes album is some sort of masterpiece; to me, it’s a decent minor record because it conveys very little to me. The Tomorrow are fantastic, but Revolver is better than their self-titled album, which has three amazing tracks and some fillers (including a cover of Strawberry Fields). The Nirvana are sometimes meticulous copies of Beatles melodies; try playing All Of Us to someone who doesn't know the '60s, and they will immediately say it reminds them of the Beatles (an experiment I've done myself). This doesn’t mean they are better than everything else, far from it, but to say that the Beatles don’t have their own style because they refer to a codified song structure prior (by whom?) would be like saying Hendrix plays like Little Richard because he was a sideman for him and plays Blues. I remember once again an interview I have on a DVD about garage history. Sky Saxon and the singer of the Shadows Of Knight declare that the main reason that drove them and many bands of the scene to pick up instruments was the American tour of the Beatles and Kinks. So I conclude by saying that personal tastes filter musical perceptions (everything that falls outside of technical discussions about song construction and music), and the sense of incompleteness may not have interested them, but that doesn’t make their music objectively superficial or merely a stylistic exercise.

Sorry, but why should someone understand from the name that you're a fan? Dear, you might be new, but when it comes time to write the review, there's a nice tutorial that warns you to check if there are already reviews of the album in question... are you perhaps blind? @metamatic: congratulations on the Lovecraftian reference from one of my favorite stories! May the fury of Azathoth (not that idiot from Morbid Angel who thinks he's a vampire) rain down upon the review and the DT!

My knowledge of Fu Manchu starts and ends more or less with In Search Of, which I heard around the time of its release. It still brings me joy, but I already liked the one after with Tony Hawk on the cover (I think it's him) much less. The departure of Glass and Romano is noticeable, and even though the good Bjork arrived, the ideas were less interesting. So this might interest me like Daredevil, which I plan to get my hands on sooner or later... Anyway, I saw both Nebula in '99 and Fu Manchu in 2000, and Nebula wins (damn, I saw them with On Trial, I barely remembered). But shaking hands with Brant was an immense joy... I need so little.

"Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you
And then he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice
He asks you how it feels
And he says, 'Here is your throat back
Thanks for the loan'.... Ballad Of A Thin Man remains one of the 5 most beautiful songs ever heard. I don’t understand, Lord, what you mean when you say you don’t listen to bands whose records exceed 35-40 minutes. There are records that stop time, and limiting oneself a priori seems pointless. This record was not meant to be shorter or longer. It is as it is, and that’s fine. It's like saying Stairway to Heaven would be cooler if they cut out some of the various arpeggios and the bridge in the middle. I can understand the argument when applied to lesser bands and albums, but here we are talking about musical archetypes. Shortening this record would be like cutting pieces from works of literature and selling the summaries."

I'm going to see it tomorrow, in fact elected you'll excuse me but I don't want to read anything. In return, I created my customized screensaver on the official website. And I hadn’t realized there’s also the definitive beauty ROSARIO!!! Forget about Johansson! Anyway, Tarantino isn’t completely wrong about Italian cinema, at least about what’s out there internationally. However, there is something interesting, like Sorrentino and Crialese just to name a couple (also because I’m not a movie buff, so I don’t know many others!).

Joseph Byrd was the soul of the United States Of America mentioned in the review. It's always a pleasure, Hal.

They played for free at my place two weeks ago and I didn't know. They told me they're nice live, very Rolling Stones. But the person who told me also says that The Horrors are awesome, so I don't know...

The intro aligns with the latest trend of being unable to take a serious critical approach to the Beatles, as Scaruffi vainly attempts to do. Regarding the USA and the supposed influences that many contemporary artists have claimed to receive over the years, I’ll leave you a link to an interview with Joe Byrd from the USA, who dismantles Zappa’s influence at the time. Just to illustrate that, in hindsight, one can say they weren’t the first; there were already people doing it, but the internet era was far away and, for better or worse, they influenced many, including the beloved USA (Stranded in Time is an example). Moreover, Byrd himself states this in the following interview: intervista a Joseph Byrd

I don't understand your comment deneil... in the rec you condemn those who brag about knowing niche stuff and then you indulge in the fact that out of 80 comments, only one knew it because he voted for it? I still don't get it.

I can't stand Johansson, ever since I saw her in the horrible Lost In Translation. She's a pretty girl, but obviously there's better out there. However, in this film at least she doesn't annoy me.