ngw

Let's not confuse "commercial operation" with a cultural phenomenon. The Pistols have tarnished everything they touched, from record deals to their own name, having been forced by the British government to perform under a fictitious name (because it was deemed obscene), and their only American tour, if it's a commercial operation, was orchestrated by a well-meaning idiot. Corporate punk makes sense; it's punk drained of its meaning, merely adopting the gestures and the music. Just look at how Green Day, as you seem to agree, worked as long as they acted like fools; when they got serious, they became caricatures. The Pistols were never a commercial operation, unless you consider the Beatles a commercial endeavor as well (because there are indeed many similarities between the Beatles and the Pistols). The Pistols superbly represented their time, completely changing the meaning of "aesthetic" and analyzing society as a result, an influence that is still felt heavy like a boulder. If commercial operations are like this (especially ephemeral ones), long live commercial operations.

They invented shoegazing, influenced a good part of the electro-noise that is so popular today, and impacted many productions in the years that followed. Their "layers of guitar" are absolutely seminal, for example, Soulvaki, which I like so much. More seminal than the national rock bird are the MBV.

The '80s have been pulled back, and the Pixies come into the conversation as they are one of the most seminal bands of that decade, unlike the Guns. I'm not a fan of Nirvana; in fact, I don't really like them at all, and I think their "movement" is bullshit created by some genius to lump together groups like Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, which have nothing in common whatsoever, and Nevermind doesn't drive me crazy; it only has some nice lyrics. Territorial Pissing is as Pixies-esque as it gets (so I like it).
After you've talked to Pat Metheny, ask him what the hell his thoughts could possibly mean to me. The fact that Pixies and My Bloody Valentine are seminal bands is absolutely objective, for me, for a good portion of other fans, and for many artists since '90, who declare it without mincing words (and the first in line are the Nirvana themselves). It's also objective that you don't have the faintest idea of what you are saying; the "minimalist" movement, which you've coined for this purpose (which is hilarious for a band like the MBV), has produced the most expensive album in Rock history, Loveless. We’re at the ABC level; let me know when you reach D. Moreover, the Guns of Appetite, the only decent ones (and perhaps a bit more), are certainly closer to the earlier Pixies of Surfer Rosa than to the Metheny you extol as the keeper of the only truth.

Since sales are so fundamental, I assume you are die-hard fans of Britney Spears. Or am I wrong?

I agree on all points, except for the vote :)

You have offended My Bloody Valentine, soon you will be terminated, know that I have already loaded easycure with explosives. If you see a hard-ass coming your way singing an hardcore version of Only Shallow, it’s him and you’re fucked.
Anyway, MBV more 90 than 80, Loveless should be from 91.
BTW, leaving aside the pathetic topic of sales (according to which Lunapop would be pillars of Italian music and Britney Spears a kind of idol to be worshiped), I recommend you do some listening, because rambling about the '80s without knowing a damn thing doesn't make you look good. You’re young, there’s nothing wrong with that.
“Ehy Ehy Ehy” as innovation is going to be my next tattoo, just so you know. No vote, can you even vote?

Also because the discussion here was rather calm, and about one of the most important groups of the 90s. No one mentioned any line-up, some may have shown a lack of critique, but if your criticism is "I can't stand the fans," maybe it could have been survived without that. The difference between l'Oro and l'orO frankly eludes me, but I will try to cope with this annoyance. In any case, you rated the album with 1, which is also a somewhat uncritical attitude since, as you say, you've once again voted against the fans.

The Ramones are rock'n'roll/surf, not punk, they don't have a single one of the characteristics that shaped the movement later known as "punk '77," they didn't invent a damn thing. One of the many urban legends about punk. It's not another discussion, it's a wrong discussion. Have you ever seen the Damned with their leather jackets and hair down to their asses? The Clash? I don’t know, Generation X? The Germs? Never. Music? Completely different. Lyrics? Totally different.

There was no Picciotto, but my assessment was "general," not focused on the records featuring Picciotto. It's a rawer album than the later ones, and personally, I find it to be the best. I adore Misery is a Butterfly; it's my album of 2004. First of all, the wonderful Kazu finally stops being in the background, then that sound, definitely poppy (but the XTC are too, which means something), feels very much like a reimagined '70s photo comic in an indie key, it's the perfect soundtrack for any Pasolini novel. I wouldn't say it's a masterpiece, but for me, it's a beautiful and, indeed, lovable album.
Rites of Spring really get on my nerves; they are emo, but that doesn’t mean Fugazi are as well. I mean, it's clear that there are countless influences and inspirations, but that's quite different from saying they are half hardcore and half emo.

A record is a record, Rolling Stones fans generally don’t know a damn thing about Blues, but Aftermath remains a great album. And clearly, you don’t know Fugazi well, the Gold has nothing to do with it, they cap the prices of tickets and records, few do.