lux

Alfredo, take it like this: I think it's a matter of how a certain thing sounds, not just what it sounds like... Where is my mind by the Pixies (for example) is three-quarters absolutely pop, but it's hallucinatory, at times absurd, and therefore outside the typical "pathetic sentimental pop" canon, and thus it has its value... Sure, you're legitimately talking about limiting subjective sensations, but I'm considering the opposite aspect: hearing is one of the 5 senses, just like sight. It's just that maybe no one here would have the courage to say that a banana (evidently and obviously) yellow could be red... Yes, I agree it's all a matter of light, but we all actually see it as yellow, right? Or looking at other observable artistic aspects: Munch's scream communicates? Objectively, I would say anguish... So for me, the same way of reasoning applies to music: the feelings we experience in front of a piece are absolutely subjective, but the feelings that piece communicates culturally are quite objective... Another example: I think we all find Eros Ramazzotti terrible, because he evokes in us deep boredom, nausea, and vomiting... but culturally he seems to want to communicate (through stereotypes and overly used clichés, thus failing) the emotion of love. And it's undeniable that he universally aims for that, albeit in a disastrous way. Or again: Suicide may completely disgust you (provoking negative personal feelings), but objectively (and always culturally) even you could admit that there is a universal communicative intention, recognizable as that of anxiety, anguish, and similar feelings... That's how I see it :-) So for me, a sound has the same evidence as the sight of an object, also because it wouldn't make sense not to recognize the same dignity between sight and hearing.

Sunday morning has an underlying tension that makes you dream of any Beatles song sincerely... it feels like a lullaby sung by a psychopath ready to kill at any moment... so it's not just aesthetic melodicism... the Beatles would have simply played a lullaby and that’s it, with the effects of a typical lullaby :-)

Sir, the Sanremo issue is a provocation in some ways, and a bit less so in others. If you take away that (at least for me) pseudo-experimental streak of the Beatles, you are left with light music songs that aren't too far off from certain Italian music... at least in substance. That is, it’s all about focusing entirely on catchy melodies that often serve no purpose. Certainly, the arrangements of the Beatles were more flashy and lavish (and Rock in various cases)... but I don't know to what extent this can be considered a good thing. As for Alfredo: maybe I wasn't clear: if it were up to me, I wouldn't talk about influences and historical importance at all because it's a discussion that proves little in artistic terms, for the reasons I explained in the previous post :-)

Hi Dolphy, do you remember me? :-DDDD I haven't listened to this Coltrane and I don’t think I will in the future...a greeting!

Ahah great 47! David, it's not that I dislike the Beatles, they simply bore me (except for those few decent albums), and I consider them greatly overrated compared to what was circulating in those same years. If the Beatles had existed alone, I would probably feel more similarly to you. One should not think that behind a criticism there is necessarily a personal dislike.. personally, the Beatles just don’t do it for me, I don’t really count them at all.. I mean Abbey Road and Revolver are listenable for sure, but they are ultimately average albums (taken in themselves, then the myth that people build around them is retrospective and of little value). I'm not saying they haven't influenced certain trends (the fact that they sold a lot and were well-known, they couldn't help but have a cultural influence), but then you have to see WHO they influenced, HOW, and WHAT came out of that influence.. that's why these historical back-and-forths are not very convincing.. it's better to look at the album itself. For example, if Tiziano Ferro had been influenced by some Beatles songs, how would you consider this influence? A valid criterion to prove the quality of the Beatles? I'd say no.. this is because influence in itself is neither good nor bad in my opinion, it's just a socio-cultural consequence, and should be taken as such.

Alfrè, thank goodness that Larrok shows up every now and then, he seems to be the only one sometimes able to understand what I mean when I argue with someone! :-)

Great review of Easy... hold on a second though, what's that 1 you gave to White Light White Heat?? I think you shot yourself in the foot there, Sir! It's better to think about oneself rather than labeling others' opinions as nonsense, I reckon...

Come on SIRBONY, let me have some fun here...

It's worth noting how David the Cockroach is gnawing away... what fun! If I were you, I'd dust off the copy of The Velvet Underground and Nico and leave aside the biggest trendy pop conservators in history for a while!

Lucy in the sky, now that’s psychedelia, damn! Forget about Red Krayola! Just think that they even got high to unnecessarily seek out meaningful inspiration... otherwise they would have been all set for Sanremo!