donjunio

What sense does it make to create a contrast between eras? Each age is unique, born of very particular circumstances and alchemies. Having such a Manichean attitude in judging them doesn’t seem very mature to me. I love both Neil Young, who was one of the greatest political consciences of the hippie era and a poetic singer of the disillusionment of the 70s, and Kurt Cobain, indiscriminately. Music should be studied and appreciated for what it expresses; we should not shelter behind outdated ideological barriers.

2) Many other things matter as well: urgency, the ability to capture the spirit of one’s time. In this sense, the freak songs you mention and appreciate so much brilliantly represent part of the spirit of their era, and no one doubts that. Why throw mud on everything that came after, like an old, bitter decadent?
Regarding the ethical discourse you bring up, we must consider the context of the time, even from a sociological perspective. During the golden age you admire, there was indeed hope of being able to change the world through music, or rather, of building a society founded on music, capable of eliminating social inequalities and war. Woodstock represented the pinnacle of that hope. An album like "If I Could Only Remember My Name" by David Crosby is symptomatic of that spirit. Then came the 70s, with their load of despair, failures, and faded utopias, precisely because the market and the logics of capitalism had also seized rock.
Finally, the 80s, with their Reaganite hedonistic backlash. In this sense, punk and grunge were certainly not, as you say, "practically incoherent and absolutely useless, ethically and musically only sufficient to express an ostentatious desire for something new that, however, had no way to expand into other fields."
Grunge, for example, was precisely the cry of rebellion, confused and politically amorphous, that that generation grew up in the cultural desert of the 80s. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was exactly that: an extraordinary testament to collective alienation. The maximum purity one could demand during that time, full of social devastation and nonexistent hopes.

1) "Grunge is rather simplistic music." Honestly, I don't believe that; bands like Soundgarden or Alice in Chains were made up of top-notch musicians, and the primordial grunge particularly represented a truly intriguing and innovative sound blend: moreover, the raw and unadorned power of execution breathed new life into a rock scene that was, at the time, pompous and empty. "Bleach" itself is an album that brilliantly layers metal, punk, and melodic precursors, all managed by Cobain, who had an extraordinary talent for songwriting that broke down genre barriers. Nirvana may not have been the best musicians in the world, but what can you do? This album was recorded with a $600 production budget. Not everyone can afford Abbey Road Studios, often resulting in truly soporific outcomes: it's not enough to make a 20-minute suite, 10 minutes of which consist of absolutely superfluous moments, to necessarily create great music. Rock belongs to everyone, not just to the first idiot who draws his sword and claims, "I'm better and more technical than everyone." The Beatles weren’t great musicians, yet they had a terrifying sense of modernity. If you make a general judgment on compositional skills, your idols Gilmour and Waters pale in comparison to any Steve Reich.

Ok Dave, thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately, I have to log off now, but I will add a post tonight in response to your statements. Bye!

I would add the tools among the groups inspired by post-Barrett Pink Floyd, or The Flaming Lips (who remembers the solo piano and voice version of "shine on you crazy diamond," fantastic)........but certainly "the piper" is the best album, there's no doubt about it.

ops 5 also to the review

memorable album, the creation nearly went bankrupt to cover the recording costs...but it was truly worth it

I agree with Aniel that everyone in Pink Floyd contributed, and that it's often a bit tiresome to hear punk/new wave enthusiasts say things like "after Barrett, the deluge..." Limiting the importance - for better or for worse - of Pink Floyd to the genius of Syd is certainly wrong, but it was undoubtedly he who gave the spark to the group's work. In my opinion, the saga of Pink Floyd after Barrett became gradually less interesting because it focused more and more on technical and formal aspects, with the exacerbation of the recording studio's role or the hypertrophic productions in their concerts, but it is far too simplistic to dismiss works like "Dark Side of the Moon" or "The Wall" in just a few words.

Sorry, Davejon, giving this album a 1 and just saying "bleah" doesn't seem very nice. Have you listened to it? What led you to give such a scathing judgment, aside from the fact that you notoriously hate grunge and almost all music that came after the 70s? Since in many of your reviews you've shown an enviable eloquence, a discussion from you would be appreciated, a rationale for such a cutting assessment.

Well, the only album they made with Barrett was the best, a peak not only of English psychedelia... Barrett was certainly mythologized, but in him there was an urgency, a fantasy, and a poetic charge that Waters and Gilmour would never match, despite often dazzling artistic results.