lux

Moreover, I would be curious to know in what way the Pixies would be overrated.

Alexander77, I am a fan of the Pixies, and let me say, your argument doesn't hold water. Let's not compare gold with shit. I may be a Pixies fanatic, but that doesn't negate the objective merits that the Pixies have had both historically and qualitatively. Being a fan doesn't mean "not understanding anything" a priori. And I bet my house that a Pixies fan will always be sharper and more insightful in their musical reflections than the average DT fan.

Guys, maybe we don't realize the RIDICULOUS situations that people like Splinter create. Another endless review of a band that’s on everyone's lips, where the reviewer writes EXACTLY the average nonsense that a DT fan usually dishes out. If Splinter is a fake, even worse; it means he really has nothing better to do during the day. These reviews are cookie-cutter, totally uncritical, and come out like clockwork every other week. "Splinter, you've broken my balls" or "enough DT" are at least CONSEQUENT expressions... Paloz says, "My vote is therefore based on an objective judgment"... could he possibly be lacking humility? Alexander77, take a look at my review of Systematic Chaos if you want to know exactly what I think of DT.

Los Campesinos, Los Natas, only Los Lobos are missing!

three was the magic number, right?

Alexander77 where have you been for the last two years?? They are also learning to understand the changes in opinion of Deb's users. I used to be a fan of Dt, but now for reasons I won’t get into, they make me sick, no, more than anything they leave me indifferent. And today I tell you that A twist in the Myth is a 1 SECCO.

Fidia refers to the fact that Scaruffi also does not hold the Anathema in high regard. However, I had read that the criticism, (I absolutely can't recall in which reading context), understood as a generalized movement, was quite unfavorable towards the Anathema.

Regarding the revolution... certainly it must almost necessarily be reduced to a few albums (often just one), precisely because the revolution, as such, manifests itself in the immediate historical contingency, in the here and now; once the change has occurred, it is already in the past. One cannot expect to revolutionize history with 10 consecutive records (also for a simple fact that artistic ideas tend to run out). However, one can expect that a band with its own dignity, after having innovated, continues its career with a style that is always as personal and recognizable as possible, and hopefully outside of clichés. Then if they create 5 masterpieces of enormous historical significance one after the other, well, that's great, but it's practically impossible.

But if we listen to the first two albums by the VU, one thing stands out: they are incredibly relevant (regardless of whether you like them or not). Only the production of the records is, of course, outdated. If you listen to a Stones record, you can tell it’s 40 years old not just in form, but fundamentally (which is what really matters in the end). Certainly, the VU can be considered "classics" in the sense of a historic and essential band, in the sense of "must-listen," but musically, I repeat, they are at least 20 years ahead of the Stones. Then 47, punk might also "disgust you," sure, but with such an expression, you encompass so many artistically significant groups (and I'm not even talking so much about the Sex Pistols and Ramones, but others) in front of which it is always very, very difficult to throw shade with a real justification that goes beyond personal tastes.

"appreciated by the more open-minded fans and criticized by the more traditional and closed-minded ones"... truly, this album should be criticized by anyone who truly cares about rock.