Undying

Great review for a nice concert that could have been perfect IN ANOTHER PLACE. Maynard was amazing to me despite the technical horror from the sound engineers. Not only was the acoustics terrible, but the volume levels were ear-bleeding. Maybe it’s just me, having tortured my eardrums with years of excess, but you shouldn’t have to suffer from pain due to the volume at a concert, for fuck’s sake.

You can hate her and hate Rose's voice, but listen to Appetite again and especially Lies (any track - You're Crazy), and tell me she didn't have an AMAZING voice. Before Use Your Illusion, as Mopaga rightly said, he underwent surgery for vocal cord cancer, and since then he has never been the same. It's a bit the same with Slash; it's a matter of taste whether you like him or not, but when it comes to talent, there's really no comparison.

I heard Badalamenti? Downloading instantly.

The discussion about rankings deserves a lengthy conversation on its own, as it's quite complex. In this case, I was responding to a statement from another-Antony, saying that Bowie earned his rankings rightly with epoch-making albums, and never with flops. And I see nothing wrong in these cases with the appreciation from the public: on the contrary, I believe it is the highest achievement, both musically and artistically, to create truly great pieces and also gain the support of the masses. The story of unknown people who overlook great artists is as old as music itself: I used to think like you do once, but now I see it quite differently. Setting aside purely commercial phenomena, which have nothing to do with music (Spears, boy bands, etc.), those who make it often truly deserve it, and those who don’t often lack the guts.
On the underground level, I know many people technically superior to famous artists (I play too), but in each of them, I've never found the MUSICAL TASTE, the RIGHT APPROACH, the SPIRIT that is often found in those who manage to impose themselves (not always, of course). I repeat, it’s not such a simple phenomenon to describe. To break through, you need guts, a lot of guts, and an iron will, which few possess. Going back to earlier, I don’t think you meant to call me ignorant, but it seemed that way from what you wrote. In any case, it’s not a problem... don’t worry. I don’t know Elton John perfectly, but I think I know enough to express my thoughts about him.

Omeros, I don't want to dwell too much on discussions that ultimately seem irrelevant, but David Bowie definitely belongs on the short list you mentioned; he had a greater influence than The Who or even The Doors (who, by the way, are my favorite band) in terms of musical influence and pioneering spirit for the generations and musical movements that followed. Mind you, I’m not the only one saying this; you can find it written everywhere – or rather, you can LISTEN to it everywhere. And enough with the purely musical criticism: rock is also made up of the personalities and creativity of PEOPLE, and Bowie is part of a select few from this perspective as well.
I make these comments because I believe I can back them up with arguments; it’s better not to think you’re always talking to ignorant people. I know the word genius and use it consciously – a musical genius is that musician capable of opening new horizons to the search and artistic evolution, which automatically "give music soul, life, breath" and everything you've written. But the opposite isn't true: those who give music soul, life, and breath are not always geniuses. Janis Joplin, Elvis, or The Who, among those you mentioned, fall into this category – great musicians (apart from Elvis) who made history but are not geniuses.
Elton John barely scratched the surface of music history (once upon a time), if he even did. Antony, Bowie climbed the charts with EPIC albums – take Ziggy, Low, Heroes just to name a few; when he made crappy albums, he didn't climb the charts. In certain cases, yes, you need to KNOW BEFORE SPEAKING.

Elton "John", of course...sorry...

I usually don't like to set up speeches on this kind of comparisons, but in light of certain ridiculous statements in the review, I couldn't help but respond. Guys, obviously listen to whatever you like the most - but the word genius has nothing to do with Elton John. David Bowie has shaped the history of music. He was a precursor of the New Wave. He left masterpieces in the most diverse genres, demonstrating a musical eclecticism that FEW have managed to achieve (Listen to Outside or Earthling, as I mentioned earlier - and I'm talking about the 90s). Elton John, after a decent start, has been sailing on pathetic standards for almost 30 years, with chart-pleasing sounds. This is what I firmly believe; everyone can think as they wish, I certainly don't need to convince anyone. But when it comes to the history of rock, there's little to discuss.

Homer, Elton John dreams at night of the genius and sophistication of Bowie. When it comes to tastes, there's no debate, but it's best to keep such statements in the drawer.

We like it a lot, yes.

Art is definitely there. The art of knowing how to sell. Of building EVERY single detail solely and exclusively for selling. The review isn't even poorly written, although I don't agree with it at all.