lux

Sunflower, I can't really consider Dark Side a masterpiece in itself. Regarding its fundamental role in 20th-century music, as I’ve already mentioned, this role reduces to collective imagination, culture, and false myths (even though the rock false myths of the past were more acceptable than today’s). Costumes influence, sure, but if we get to the heart of the matter, Dark Side is at most a cute little record in certain moments. Certainly much more accessible to the masses compared to Ummagumma. For me, Dark Side remains much more psychedelic than progressive. The point is that whether you see it as a psycho album or a prog album, honestly, it can't be considered a masterpiece, not for music, not for sports, not for politics, not for the religion of the 20th century. Or maybe for religion yes, since Dark Side represents a blind act of faith. Regarding the "God on Earth" discussion, it has now been confirmed that those with clear ideas who express them on Debaser (even if temporarily, as they are always evolving) are always mistaken for false pretentious know-it-alls. This matter doesn’t concern me.

I don't feel like arguing with girls who first tease and then play the victim when they get a sharp response :-) Just so you know, if you think I'm being original in downplaying Dark Side, don't kid yourself: there are many Deb users who consider Dark Side overrated and fundamental not musically but in terms of collective imagination. The myth of Dark Side was created more because of its polished production and the copies sold than for its musical content. On the other hand, anyone who knows the Floyd's previous albums can't help but notice that. Dark Side, however, is a psychedelic album; what else would it be important for if not for psychedelia? For post-hardcore industrial? For "music" in general is a meaningless expression that indicates nothing.

What a cut!

But I am talking about attitude in the sense of weltanschauung, of a life vision that shines through in the music. I’ve never referenced exceptional people or personal attitudes or the character of an artist! Pixies77, and you say that to me?! I’m not the one who slapped a 1 on Definitely Maybe! Alessio, when you do that I'd like to pinch your little mouth, but what’s the point of arguing with you if you don’t even consider what others have to say? I couldn’t care less if you don’t agree with me, but every now and then give some satisfaction to those who are talking to you. You can’t demand to be both likable and a jerk at the same time; right now, you’ve just come off as a jerk.

So pixies77, your speech touches on sore points, in the sense that the story of 10 Power Metal albums compared to 10 Kraut albums is indeed true. But the point (I believe) isn’t so much the genre itself that creates fans, but the attitude: one of the most overused terms on Deb, so I’m not surprised if I come off as verbose and boring, but that’s exactly the point. Personally, I think that to play good stuff you need to have a certain outlook on life, or at least you need to make sure you don’t have any other (harmful to me) outlooks. Sure, if your reference group is the VU, it’s more likely that something good will come out, compared to Iron Maiden and Queen. But not because of the genre itself, but because of the attitude. The problem (for example) isn’t heavy metal; the problem is how it is re-presented year after year, and it’s that approach that makes one break out in hives, namely always the same as the past (in the vast majority of cases). Always assuming that those who blatantly copy others' attitudes (be it the Pere Ubu or the Beatles, it’s the same), attitudes that in the meantime become clichés, are simply pointless.

47 you're nervous, now that’s explained. Apart from the fact that even if you had given it a 4, that wouldn’t justify you going mad. I think it would have come across with arrogance even if I had written "Hi 47," since I see nothing arrogant in my early posts. Regarding Oasis, the exact opposite is true when it comes to "approximation and ignorance." Achieving a certain result without being personally aware of it is the best. The "Dada awareness" often creates annoying intellectualism; the act of making music should reach certain goals unconsciously and naturally. Those who program their inspiration, who intellectualize it forcefully to show off their competence to others, can come off as artificial, fake, and truly rhetorical. It’s precisely the unawareness of this album (combined with a total lack of musical presumption, no matter what anyone says) that makes it better than it seems to you. Unawareness has accompanied many minds in indie rock. Even Mould, I don’t think he was worried about Dada awareness when he screamed desperately New Day Rising. Let’s not forget that the Gallagher brothers in ’94 were much less savvy and cunning (even musically) than they might be today. Sure, structurally and in terms of composition, the tracks on this album might seem simple, maybe even trivial. But I thought it was already established that the compositional aspect of the tracks isn’t really the primary criterion for evaluating a rock album; otherwise, a lot of lame prog metal bands would be the best in the world. I’m interested in the sound and the attitude as such, and honestly, I can't find anything disgraceful in Definitely Maybe from this point of view. PS: Pixies77, I’m trying to come over to you, I haven’t forgotten :-)

"No, I'm not interested in discussing it. Until now I haven't done it because I haven't even considered your opinion." --- Well, sorry Alè, but if you're in this state, it's better to spend the day debating with Scaruffi in person. It would still be less arrogant. Next time I won't waste minutes of my life talking to someone so full of themselves that they don't even listen to me; I'll use that time to squeeze my blackheads instead, it's a great stress reliever.

Oh come no, now you want to make us look like intellectual snobs, but the one who kicked off everything with a double 1 and wrote "putting more than one on this record means justifying any barbarity perpetrated by men/beasts on other men. one to save humanity" was you. There was much more than a mere critical stance towards Scaruffi here... there was an ostentation of absolute truth, implying that anyone who gave a rating higher than 1 to Definitely Maybe was a fool. Don’t bounce back and forth on the "I am a critic - I am not a critic" line, depending on what suits you, though, right? You have a tendency to justify the beautiful and the ugly just like we do, and you’re not any more genuine or simple than we are.

Everything is fine, Alessio, but if you enter my perspective (and then exit it) 3 to this record fits perfectly, because at the beginning they were a pair of unfortunate brothers like many others, unsure of great success, who played simple yet intelligent rock in their non-genius, more ragged than the great 47 would have us believe. (Blackdog once said they were a working-class version of the Stone Roses, and I agree). Then, still 47, speaks of Wall Of Sound as if it were a negative feature… someone remind him who Bob Mould is.

47 but calm down, what do you want from me? You were waiting for this discussion, you couldn't wait, could you? The "alternative" listener, in this sense, can be limited if by alternative we mean "a trend of listening to certain bands but not others." In this regard and meaning, not only would I not like to be alternative, but I also hope I am not. If you don’t like a certain consistency in judgment, I don’t understand: What’s the point of talking to me? Why attack me? Your ideas will always be less shareable than mine if you start from the notion that "intellectual honesty is another ridiculous pose." And then you also want to have an "objective judgment." No, it’s ridiculous, exactly the opposite. "This album is better for you than Lateralus"---I rated both a 3. Can you count to 3?