lux

In fact, Kasabian, Jet, Arctic Monkeys, and The Killers are not exactly the highlights of life (in my opinion)... Recognitions need to be considered based on WHO they come from. Whether a band is important or not is something that culturally the Critique (with a capital C) decides, not the reviewers ready to get paid a fortune to speak well of an album. That's also why I suggested a few rock books for you to consult, which I should do too. However, if you take a look around the Web (Ondarock, Scaruffi's site, and the like), you'll realize a lot of things... while still believing that the more new stuff you listen to, the more your judgment will become "critical." By the way, do you happen to know when the next Oasis album will be released?

What a masterpiece!

In fact, I was talking about the success of NIN in general, not about this particular album. Without a doubt, The Fragile is more well-known than Consumer Revolt by Cop Shoot Cop, and perhaps that could implicitly influence you. I'm listening to it again now, and I have to say that, while it is an excellent album, I see it as clearly inferior to The Downward Spiral. So I highly recommend you listen to the true masterpiece by NIN.

No no, I don’t like you like this. Did I speak badly of Oasis?? And where???? Did I say they suck? I don’t think so. To downsize does not mean to hate an artist. You want me to say that Oasis were one of the most influential bands in history, in the 90s, but that’s clearly false, because in the 90s there were at least 98,675 bands more influential than them. And it's not a hobby for me to downsize Oasis; I would prefer to criticize other groups because I have an emotional connection to Oasis (I’ll say it for the 456th time). However, when judging an album, one must free oneself from this affection, otherwise, it leads to a lack of objectivity. Best regards.

It's a trend to speak poorly of the Nin, huh. Just because they've achieved success. If they had stayed in anonymity, I'd bet you'd rate them a nice 5.

I liked this, but you could have spared us the usual rant about Metallica.

Queen 2, Sheer Heart Attack, and A Night At the Opera are definitely up there with the best of Genesis.

No, wait, a certain music is the mirror of society, but not of "all society" as a whole and indiscriminately. It is the mirror of part of it, of course (of 1 individual or 10,000, but it's always a part). This is also because society is heterogeneous and multifaceted; a music can be "revolutionary," but always from the perspective of the revolutionaries, therefore from a specific social class. It's not that all society and all the individuals that compose it are revolutionaries. Then you say that art "is devoid of truly decisive content for change"... of course! And that's a good thing, otherwise it wouldn't be art! Art should not be a tool for the concrete achievement of any political or social goal, heaven forbid! It can be indirectly, but never directly. The artist creates art according to their own creative and expressive impulse in connection with the external influences of society. But politics and morality, when viewed as goals to be achieved, should keep their distance.

It's not the number of chords that matters, but the originality and/or innovation compared to the past. You keep insisting that they were a great band, BUT FROM WHAT POINT OF VIEW? In terms of success, yes; in terms of artistry, no. The My Bloody Valentine made the revolutions when they created shoegaze, with a wall of distortion unlike anything anyone had ever made before. But since we're talking about a band that is absolutely unknown to most, the credit goes to Oasis because they're "famous"... go to Scaruffi's website and read the entry on Oasis, and you'll understand that compared to me, he’s a sweet "critic"...

And you say that to me, that we need to be objective?? Did I perhaps say that Oasis have a completely worthless discography? Here on Debaser, the detractors of Liam and Noel's band are everywhere, swarming like flies on dung, while I still seem like a fan in comparison. For heaven's sake, tastes can't be discussed; you like them? Perfect. We can even go see the next Gallagher brothers concert together since I have everything of theirs and all original, but they remain one of the most hyped and overrated bands of the 90s, not because they suck completely, but because there's always an audience ready to drool over the next "rock star" propped up by the media. I repeat, I always speak as a novice and as someone who still has to listen to a lot of rock, but my judgment is purely artistic. Nowadays, critics—those "intellectual" ones, to be clear—spit on Oasis, probably unjustly, since when the Oasis mania exploded in '94, everyone was shining their shoes for the Gallaghers and hailing them as the new Beatles; a few years later, everyone was pissing all over them. But you keep talking about emotions, while I talk about artistic quality...