easycure

What the hell are you talking about, Tom, for heaven's sake.. and do you really think that thirty years ago they had backing singers? Did they need an extra percussionist? And a saxophonist? Thirty years ago, they had produced albums called "Division Bell" with related songs? Come on, why do you keep making a fool of yourself? You're just trying to dismantle my position by presenting simply absurd arguments.. and in the meantime, I still don't understand why this live show would be so great for you. I'm still waiting in glory :-)

Ok, it’s not that I necessarily agreed with everything he said.. I found both "Petrucci is an idiot" and "horrifying album" amusing, and it entertained me that someone with his nickname said it, nothing more ;-) bye

"Punk is about killing the quality of music in favor of banality." Of course, indeed, notoriously "another day," "spirit carries on.." and various other trivialities worthy of the Backstreet Boys are a blatant example of great originality and depth, it seems obvious to me :-D By the way, before rewriting anything about punk, it would be appropriate to have some understanding of the subject: therefore, I recommend delving into the entire Washington scene, starting with Bad Brains and continuing with Minor Threat, Rites of Spring, Fugazi, Black Eyes, and also Jawbox. Also, still focusing on the '80s, it is essential to listen to Replacements and Husker Du if you want to have the SLIGHTEST idea of what punk meant in that decade. It wouldn't hurt to check out the early albums of Unrest either. On the other side of the ocean, make sure to brush up on Warsaw and Wire... Of course, if you’ve already heard these bands, my invitation is moot... and yet, I wonder why, I doubt it ;-) bye

'azzo tom traubert, you really know how to get into intelligent arguments.. :-D even if there’s no damn sax in that piece, the concert is still full of tacky stuff like that.. and it remains an unworthy version anyway. you keep diving into the heart of the discussion in a relevant way, I notice.. let’s be serious, come on, if there’s nothing to say it’s better to stay quiet ;-)

great Beat ramone, you should have shown up around here earlier :-D your nickname, by the way, says a lot ;-)

In the end, I never heard them, despite having heard their names mentioned several times. I will look into it further.

The usual four singles are the same inevitable ones: Wish You Were Here, Another Brick in the Wall... Part 2, Comfortably Numb. The even more obvious four classics are Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Breathe, Time, Money. The rest of Dark Side of the Moon without Waters is frankly avoidable. Whether or not I consider it one of their more significant albums is a personal opinion. The fact remains that even the idea of performing it in its entirety makes no sense. I didn't mention Astronomy Domine to avoid delivering the final blow; depending on the case, this version can make you cry or laugh. Anyway, the choice to play it NOW, obviously without Barrett, is questionable; essentially, if a cover band played it, it would be the same. In fact, they might have done it better. For this reason, and obviously for everything I have already expressed above, their setlist seems questionable to me. Because it is pathetic and predictable, because it’s not a concert but a sort of circus performance or even more a museum exhibit of what everyone knows about the Floyd, which is far from everything the Floyd were. As far as their abilities are concerned, I will only note that neither in Pompeii nor, for instance, in '70 when they performed live nothing less than the suite from Atom Heart Mother did they need such a horde of tourists... I would like to see them attempt Atom Heart Mother now; they wouldn’t have an ounce of the intensity they had back then. Similarly, this version of Astronomy Domine compared to the one from Ummagumma sounds like it was done by three morphine-doped half-asleep people who don’t understand a thing. I can trust you on Echoes, but here what I perceive as historically significant is clearly shabby.

Ok, you call it evolution what you see in the light shows, and I can understand that term up to The Wall, where the scenic backdrop makes sense. But where is the evolution in this tour? What is the purpose of such a wasteful display of predictable fluorescent gimmicks? To complement the pieces from Division Bell? Or to recount the older ones, right, with that horrible circle that plays those embarrassing videos? I see no evolution in any of this. As for the pieces, I notice from you a dreamtheaterian tendency to evaluate only the technical aspect :-) ... on which I can also agree, but if everything were limited to that, then it would be nice to see Vasco Rossi surrounded by the usual champions of virtuosity. What remains, aside from that aspect, is the horrible tendency towards tackiness and bad taste passed off as refinement, from the syrupy, now-usual backing singers to the dreadful digressions like the one already mentioned in "One of These Days," which I can't understand how someone who appreciates the real Floyd could accept without wanting to throw up. The setlist, then, is highly questionable, the usual four singles and the usual four classics that only make one yawn, but again, the capabilities and intent probably leave no room for anything else. It's true that someone who doesn't know the Floyd isn't exactly getting the best of them; in fact, they get a big dose of inflated and cloying pathos, a summary of the least significant things they have done, with the exception of "Run Like Hell" and the already poorly executed "One of These Days." There are "older" bands that maintain a bit more artistic dignity, like those great druggies, the Gong; this Floyd here is just sad. Well... it might still please some, of course, opinions, but to define it as five stars...

In fact, "uncontainable beauty" was a hyperbole, a figure of speech ;-) ..ah, concrete things: and which ones, pray tell? And what does "concrete things" mean? Well, and again, well. I don't understand why "comfortably numb," just like that, would be worth several 5s from various albums, just as I don't understand why, neither from you nor from the legendary Tom, this would be a great live. I keep asking myself this, considering you all started out furious like monkeys as soon as I expressed an opinion, but I still don't understand the reasons for your... well, and again, well :-D

Dave, what does "The grandeur of the lights is proportional to such greatness" mean, and also "you will be the only one in the world to criticize the lights of the Pink Floyd concerts," and again, "It's not a matter of psychedelia, it's just ART."? Why do light shows matter when judging the greatness of a band? Aren't light shows an invention from the London psychedelic era? It's clear that now they are completely decontextualized, just a pathetic attraction to draw in the crowd; they have no contextual significance to the tracks, as they might have had during The Wall tour, and they are meaningless since in '94 the Floyd play everything but psychedelia. A spontaneous question: what purpose do they serve then if not as pure special effects, a little amusement park trinket, a tacky display to reaffirm a status (that you yourself judge as demonstrating being the greatest band on Earth, pure exhibitionism)? But of course, no one understands, so I don't see what is even remotely artistic about it.